Citizenship debacle cost taxpayers $11 million

The parliamentary citizenship crisis cost the Australian taxpayers $11 million in legal fees according to recent budget documents.

That figure, which doesn’t include the cost of by-elections in Barnaby Joyce’s seat of New England or John Alexander’s seat in Bennelong, was provided in the Government’s Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO).

Attorney-General George Brandis argued in October that the costs of all parties should be covered by the taxpayer because solving the section 44 crisis was in the public interest.

He said “most people would accept that there is a very important public interest here in getting this section of the constitution right”.

What do you think? Should the taxpayers foot the bill for the legal defence of politicians who were found to be serving illegally? What about those that remain under a citizenship cloud?

FirstPrev12(page 2/2)
21 comments

 

Bill Shorten and Mark Dreyfus have been dishonest by claiming that Labor's vetting process was impeccable. 

Shorten's claim that the laws have been changed is untrue.

He is afraid to go against union calls.

Well it makes you wonder what is actually involved in this so called satisfactory vetting process.

It is high time they got rid of this Dual Citizenship altogether

Surely when you become naturalized as an Australian Citizen ... one should be just that.

You either want to be Australian or some other countries citizen.

If you are born here you automatically become an Australian Citizen.

Further all Politicians should be Australian by birth.... our population is now large enough for that to occur.

FOUR federal parliamentarians have handed in their resignations after a High Court decision over Labor Senator Katy Gallagher’s dual citizenship.

More.

Deport them all to where they came from

At least in Barnaby's case he had no idea he was a New Zealand citizen based on his grandfather's place of birth. His mum is 5th generation Aussie. OI OI OI!

These Laborites knew they were dual citizens. They are shifty.

 I tend to agree re awful waste of money and nit picky, but hopefully over time the situation will be clarified for all time.

What I can't abide is the moralising and self-righteousness that spews endlessly from Shorten and Co.

What are these lot doing!? -- both sides -- they have none sweet BA for many years now except fight and bitch and carry on and have spent more money on WHAT!!!!!   Except fill their OWN pockets!   

Oh how great it would be to be able to SACK the bloody lot of the USELESS Bastards

Being an MP is no different to being a union boss in that your wages are derived solely from donations. However, there is a difference in the level of transparency, public expectation and  scrutiny of our politicians. As Richo would say, the mob has worked this bloke out. For 6 months he ran protection for Katy Gallagher being too afraid to go against the unions.


These politicians were well aware of Section 44 of the Constitution or they should be. If they can't read and fully understand it then they cannot be trusted in my opinion. 

The restrictions on the eligibility of Australians to stand for parliament are pretty stringent and I feel the way it is set out is not very clear cut. That's no excuse and if they didn't understand what was required of them..they should have had legal advice. So IMO..the taxpayer should not have to pay their legal costs.

I agree one must be an Australian citizen to stand for office..however.. I feel it is unfair to expect people to be chastised because their parents and grandparents were born in another country. After all this country is made up of immigrants.

I do feel strongly that politicians should not have "dual citizenship"..but for any other citizen I don't see a problem..

Lets remember in John Alexanders case the UK home office could not find any evidence that JA was a UK citizen. It was speculation based on his heritage. McCarthyism. This current lot knew of their dual citizenship when elected. They also refused to face the people in the hope that the law didn't apply to them. That's union culture.

The union solicitors who apparently gave Shorten etc the advice should have to pay NOT the taxpayer.

FirstPrev12(page 2/2)
21 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment