tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/katy-gallagher-21493/articlesKaty Gallagher – The Conversation2024-03-07T07:47:18Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2250812024-03-07T07:47:18Z2024-03-07T07:47:18Z‘Inequality serves no-one’: Australia finally has a strategy to achieve gender equality - but is it any good?<p>As International Women’s Day comes around once more, the latest <a href="https://www.wgea.gov.au/pay-and-gender/gender-pay-gap-data">gender pay gap figures</a> for Australia have made for disappointing reading, including naming those companies where the gap is widest.</p>
<p>Looking at full-time equivalent total remuneration, the gender pay gap in Australia is at 21.7%. Yikes.</p>
<p>As she launched the government’s latest <a href="https://genderequality.gov.au/">gender equality strategy</a> at the Press Club on Thursday, Finance Minister and Minister for Women Katy Gallagher <a href="https://www.themandarin.com.au/241294-working-for-women-australia-first-national-strategy-to-achieve-gender-equality/">called</a> this “an eye-watering disparity”.</p>
<p>So what are the key points in the strategy and what actual difference is it likely to make?</p>
<p>As a guiding principle, one of Gallagher’s strongest quotes from the launch was that “inequality serves no-one”.</p>
<p>The strategy sets out that gender inequality and stereotypes also constrain men, limiting their choices, supports and opportunities. One way to redress this would be to normalise equal parenting and caring roles in Australian society. </p>
<p>Where the strategy is weakest is on how to preserve women’s hard-fought gains during crises and shocks such as the <a href="https://www.unwomen.org/en/news-stories/explainer/2022/02/explainer-how-gender-inequality-and-climate-change-are-interconnected">climate transition</a>. </p>
<h2>So what is the big picture for Australian gender equality?</h2>
<p>In this context, Gallagher said she is determined to get Australia back up the <a href="https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2023/09/13/1386126/climbing-the-ranks-australias-gender-equity-breakthrough#:%7E:text=This%20significant%20moment%20dovetails%20with,political%20action%20to%20empower%20women.">international rankings</a> on gender equality.</p>
<p>I know what you’re thinking: Australia didn’t have a gender equality strategy before now? The surprising answer is no.</p>
<p>There is a 2022–32 <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/ending-violence">strategy</a> on violence against women and girls, for example, but until now, there has been never been a plan for the broader goal of gender equality, and no plan to address <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Human_Rights/HumanRightsFramework">human rights</a> since 2013. </p>
<p>And even now, the ten-year strategy won’t start until 2025. Can you imagine defence or infrastructure going years or decades without a strategy? AUKUS has a $368 billion plan between now and the mid-2050s. But key areas of social policy such mental health, gender equality or climate adaptation lapse for years, or are built and unbuilt by electoral change. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, the government is at least to be given some credit for finally giving us one on gender equality.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/krWLRJXu35o?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>So what’s in it?</h2>
<p><a href="https://genderequality.gov.au/">Working for Women: A Strategy for Gender Equality</a> has a vision of “an Australia where people are safe, treated with respect, have choices and have access to resources and equal outcomes no matter their gender”. It includes a great section on harmful gender attitudes and stereotypes, complete with narratives. </p>
<p>There are also five priority areas for action: gender-based violence; unpaid and paid care; economic equality and security; health; and leadership, representation and decision-making. </p>
<p>Some of the key points are: </p>
<ul>
<li>New federal procurement rules will be developed by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) so Australian businesses with 500 employees or more will be required to meet new gender equality targets if they want to win government contracts (noting federal public procurement is worth $70 billion). </li>
</ul>
<p>These <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/07/labor-gender-equality-targets-government-contracts-katy-gallagher-national-press-club-speech">targets</a> will focus on the gender makeup of companies’ boards and the workforce; equal pay; flexible working arrangements; workplace consultation on gender equality; and efforts to prevent and address sexual harassment. </p>
<p>This has been proven overseas to be an excellent lever for gender quality outcomes. My <a href="https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/Gender-smart%20Procurement%20-%2020.12.2017.pdf">research for UK think tank Chatham House</a> showed public procurement accounts for around one-fifth of global gross domestic product. It is estimated women-owned businesses and women entrepreneurs supplied just 1% of this market. </p>
<ul>
<li><p>The federal government will <a href="https://ministers.pmc.gov.au/gallagher/2024/paying-super-government-paid-parental-leave-enhance-economic-security-and-gender-equality">pay superannuation on paid parental leave</a> (PPL) from July 1 2025.</p></li>
<li><p>The government will work towards the goal that paid and unpaid care work must be better valued. Women currently account for 75% of disability carers, 87% of residential aged carers, and more than 90% of early childhood educators. </p></li>
<li><p>The strategy will also tackle structural medical biases that lead to poorer health outcomes for women and girls, especially in relation to endometriosis and pelvic pain, and menopause.</p></li>
</ul>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/government-to-pay-super-on-paid-parental-leave-benefitting-180-000-families-a-year-225178">Government to pay super on paid parental leave, benefitting 180,000 families a year</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/580368/original/file-20240307-22-calbu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/580368/original/file-20240307-22-calbu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580368/original/file-20240307-22-calbu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580368/original/file-20240307-22-calbu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580368/original/file-20240307-22-calbu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580368/original/file-20240307-22-calbu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580368/original/file-20240307-22-calbu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">While the government’s strategy has much to recommend it, it needed to do more on the impact of climate change on women.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>But climate impacts could undo it all…</h2>
<p>Where the strategy falls down badly is in the consideration of climate impacts and related disasters on Australia’s progress towards gender equality. </p>
<p>Literally the last page of the report notes that given the unequal impact of crises such as climate change and natural disasters on women, diverse leadership and representation are important. But the strategy doesn’t see climate adaptation as the game-changer that it is, with most current climate adaptation measures in energy, transport, disaster management, finance, climate services and technology fuelling gender inequality outcomes.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, as the minister said in her speech, the strategy points us to a better future for the next generation of girls and women: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>To a little girl who is born today. That by the time you go to school, you won’t have preconceived ideas about “girl” jobs and “boy” jobs. That by the time you choose the subjects you study you don’t self-select out of maths or science and technology if that’s what you’re interested in. That as you grow up, you and your male peers learn about respectful relationships and enthusiastic consent rather than how women should protect themselves and their friends from the threat of violence.</p>
<p>That if you experience the pain of endometriosis or polycystic ovarian syndrome your diagnosis doesn’t take a decade, or that you’re told the pain is in your head and then sent away from the ED with only Nurofen as pain relief.</p>
<p>That you won’t be catcalled when you go for a run or look over your shoulder when you walk alone.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/225081/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Harris Rimmer receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Federal Government and Queensland Government. Susan is the President of UNAA Qld and on the board of youth-led NGO Foundations for Tomorrow.</span></em></p>While there is much to applaud in the government’s strategy, it neglects to deal with the unequal gender impacts of climate change.Susan Harris Rimmer, Professor and Director of the Policy Innovation Hub, Griffith Business School, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2082992023-06-22T08:45:54Z2023-06-22T08:45:54ZWord from The Hill: A wild and badly behaved parliamentary fortnight<p>As well as her interviews with politicians and experts, Politics with Michelle Grattan includes “Word from The Hill”, where she discusses the news with members of The Conversation’s politics team.</p>
<p>In this podcast Michelle and politics + society editor Amanda Dunn discuss the free-for-all between Coalition, government and Greens in the final sitting fortnight before the winter break. </p>
<p>The Coalition’s offensive on Katy Gallagher over the Higgins saga backfired when Liberal Senator David Van was accused of inappropriate behaviour and kicked out of the Liberal party room (he later quit the party). </p>
<p>The government announced an extra $2 billion for social and affordable housing, hoping to win Greens’ support for its $10 billion signature Housing Australia Future Fund. To the government’s fury, the Greens held out, leading to angry accusations between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Greens spokesman Max Chandler-Mather. </p>
<p>The politicians are now returning to their electorates, where they are likely to face plenty of talk from constituents about those rising power prices and other bills.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208299/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In this podcast Michelle and politics + society editor Amanda Dunn discuss the wild final sitting fortnight before the winter breakMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2080162023-06-19T07:14:22Z2023-06-19T07:14:22ZGovernment’s housing fund legislation delayed by Greens-Coalition alliance<p>The Greens and the Coalition have teamed up again to present a vote being taken on the government’s $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. </p>
<p>Consideration of the legislation has been delayed until October 16. </p>
<p>The government at the weekend announced an immediate $2 billion for social housing – which will go to states and territories over this fortnight – hoping that would persuade the Greens to support the fund. </p>
<p>But the Greens are holding out for controls on rents, which are actually within the jurisdiction of the states. </p>
<p>Anthony Albanese, answering a Greens question in parliament, said the Greens had made themselves “irrelevant to the debate”. </p>
<p>“I understand that renters are doing it tough,” he said. “Yes, I want to do things about that”, and the government was working with the states on various measures. But “what we are not doing is destroying supply while we do it. Because the key to fixing housing is supply.” </p>
<p>If the government did what the Greens wanted there would be less supply of housing, Albanese said.. The Greens should have had “the guts” to vote against the legislation rather than deferring it. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1670615848640479237"}"></div></p>
<p>The Minister for Housing, Julie Collins, said “there is a cost to these delays.</p>
<p>"Every day of delay is more than $1.3 million that does not go to housing for people that need it. If this bill gets delayed until October, the Greens political party and the Liberals would have succeeded in delaying it for more than six months. Every six months is $250 million that could have gone to building more homes.”</p>
<p>This is the second time the Greens and Coalition have prevented a vote on the legislation. The proposed $10 billion fund would produce $500 million a year for social and affordable rental housing.</p>
<p>Finance Minister Katy Gallagher said the fund was “an important piece of national infrastructure”. </p>
<p>Opposition leader in the Senate Simon Birmingham told Sky the Coalition had “always thought that adding these billions of dollars extra to government debt for no immediate impact on the housing market was a bad idea, especially so for a policy that has no benefit in terms of addressing rates of home ownership in Australia”. </p>
<p>The Senate’s action prompted speculation that the deferral could form the initial step to having the bill qualify as double dissolution legislation. Special Minister of State Don Farrell said: “If the Senate defers bills to October, the government will regard this as the Senate failing to pass the bill, and I’m sure you understand the consequences of that”.</p>
<p>Greens leader Adam Bandt said that “it says a lot about the government that they’d rather tout this as a double dissolution trigger rather than negotiating to pass their own bill”. </p>
<p>The Constitution’s Section 57 provides that if the House of Representatives passes a bill and the Senate “rejects or fails to pass it” and after three months the lower house again passes the bill and the Senate again rejects or fails to pass it, it can become the basis for a dissolution of both houses. </p>
<p>Sydney University constitutional expert Anne Twomey said the High Court has previously held that the Senate needs a reasonable amount of time to debate and deliberate upon a bill. </p>
<p>“This may include sending it to a parliamentary committee. But in this case, the delay is not due to a need to deliberate. It is for the purpose of waiting to see if the Albanese Government will change its policy and negotiate an agreement in National Cabinet which suits the policy aim of the Greens,” Twomey said. </p>
<p>“While there is no certainty, the government would have a good case to argue that a delay of this kind amounts to a failure to pass. Even taking into account the winter recess, there is still plenty of time to properly debate the bill before 16 October”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208016/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The government at the weekend announced an immediate $2 billion for social housing – which will go to states and territories over this fortnight – hoping this would get the Greens to support the fundMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2078402023-06-15T11:41:43Z2023-06-15T11:41:43ZGrattan on Friday: Liberals come a cropper when they try to dig afresh into the Brittany Higgins story<p>Two women ended up in tears in the Senate this week, as the Higgins imbroglio exploded yet again and in the process claimed a scalp. </p>
<p>But the scalp wasn’t that of Finance Minister Katy Gallagher, who was targeted by the Liberals. </p>
<p>Instead it was one of the Liberals’ own, David Van, <a href="https://theconversation.com/peter-dutton-expels-senator-david-van-from-liberal-party-room-after-more-allegations-against-him-207826">who was banished from the Liberal party room by Peter Dutton</a>, after allegations from crossbencher Lidia Thorpe that the Victorian senator had sexually assaulted her, a claim he strongly denied.</p>
<p>The Liberals knew their pursuit of Gallagher for allegedly misleading parliament over her knowledge of the Brittany Higgins matter would carry some political risk. But they could never have imagined they’d be damaged in such a dramatic fashion, ceding one of their senators to the crossbench.</p>
<p>Federal politics, the tone of which has been better than in the last parliamentary term, once again descended into a toxic mire. </p>
<p>Van’s spectacular fall began with Thorpe (formerly with the Greens) on Wednesday shouting interjections when he was speaking about Labor’s attacks on Liberal women over the Higgins issue, and parliamentary standards. <a href="https://theconversation.com/lidia-thorpe-alleges-she-was-sexually-assaulted-by-liberal-senator-david-van-a-claim-he-brands-disgusting-207748">She alleged he’d “harassed” and “sexually assaulted” her</a>, which he immediately rejected.</p>
<p>In a broader set of allegations on Thursday, in which she didn’t specifically name Van, a tearful Thorpe said: “I experienced sexual comments, and was inappropriately propositioned by powerful men. One man followed me and cornered me in a stairwell.</p>
<p>"There are different understandings of what amounts to sexual assault. What I experienced was being followed, aggressively propositioned and inappropriately touched. I was afraid to walk out of the office door. I would open the door slightly and check the coast was clear before stepping out,” she said. </p>
<p>“To me it was sexual assault, and the [Morrison] government at the time recognised it as such,” she said, because it immediately moved the person’s office.</p>
<p>Between late Wednesday and Thursday morning, other allegations about Van came to Dutton, with former Liberal senator Amanda Stoker confirming to him that Van had groped her. </p>
<p>Stoker later publicly recounted how “in November 2020 Senator Van inappropriately touched me at an informal social gathering in a parliamentary office. He did so by squeezing my bottom twice. By its nature and by its repetition, it was not accidental. That action was not appropriate. It was unprofessional and uninvited.” Van subsequently apologised.</p>
<p>Even if it hadn’t inadvertently blown itself up, the Coalition was always going to struggle with its attack on Gallagher. The minister, with caucus – in Anthony Albanese’s words – “1000%” behind her, could simply stare down her interrogators, although that meant enduring a good deal of heat. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/word-from-the-hill-coalition-attacks-on-katy-gallagher-voice-losing-traction-future-fund-holdout-207739">Word from The Hill: Coalition attacks on Katy Gallagher, Voice losing traction, future fund holdout</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Gallagher’s 2021 claim, at a Senate estimates hearing, that she had no prior knowledge of Higgins’ allegation she was raped, was wrong, and therefore misled parliament.</p>
<p>Indeed, Gallagher had admitted privately to Liberal then-minister Linda Reynolds on that same night that she had some prior knowledge. This week she refused to be drawn on details of her interactions around receiving this information, leaving the opposition empty-handed. She did say – a crucial point – <a href="https://theconversation.com/katy-gallagher-says-she-didnt-alert-albanese-or-wong-to-the-pending-brittany-higgins-interview-207627">that she hadn’t passed on the information</a>, obtained from Higgins and her partner David Sharaz, to Albanese or Labor’s Senate leader, Penny Wong. </p>
<p>Labor has been able to deploy effectively the argument that by revisiting the Higgins issue the Liberals will discourage women coming forward with allegations they have been assaulted. Albanese said: “My concern here is that we know that about 13% of sexual assault victims actually take action, go forward to police. And I’m worried that the focus that is going on at the moment will have a triggering effect and will deter people from coming forward.”</p>
<p>The debate also turned to the ethics of the disclosure of previously private communications, most notably the leaked text messages between Sharaz and Higgins. </p>
<p>This disclosure – involving court material – was widely condemned, and the Liberals struggled to win their argument that however the material became public, they were perfectly justified in dealing with the content. The opposition maintained it was pursuing accountability, but that was blurred by the counter argument about Higgins’ right of privacy.</p>
<p>The latest round of the Higgins issue has also been entangled in what we can call the media wars. The disclosure of the texts and other material has been spearheaded by The Australian, which has given massive coverage to changing the narrative of the Higgins story, in a direction that is less favourable to her. Some other sections of the media were not keen to follow up The Australian’s stories. </p>
<p>While Gallagher’s survival was always guaranteed, the attacks have taken their toll. By Thursday she was teary, lamenting that the work done on having women treated better and encouraging them to come forward when something happened to them had been set back.</p>
<p>She also conceded: “I am sorry Senator Reynolds is clearly upset about what happened to her. I am sorry about that. And I told her that.</p>
<p>"But I am also very sorry for Brittany Higgins, I’m sorry documents about her personal life have been leaked, I’m sorry a confidential draft claim for compensation [for Higgins] found its way onto the front pages of a national newspaper.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-brittany-higgins-story-continues-its-damaging-trail-with-no-end-in-sight-207500">View from The Hill: Brittany Higgins story continues its damaging trail, with no end in sight</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Higgins story has a cast of women. Not just the young woman, a former Liberal staffer, who made the rape allegation. Women were on the front line of the political battle around that story: in 2021 then-ministers Reynolds and Michaelia Cash and Labor spear carriers Wong, Gallagher and then-senator Kristina Keneally.</p>
<p>In the media, women broke the story: Sam Maiden (News Corp) and Lisa Wilkinson (Ten). Janet Albrechtsen (The Australian) has led the counter-narrative. </p>
<p>The separate events that took centre stage this week regarding Gallagher and Van all happened some years ago. In the wake of the damning 2021 Jenkins report on behaviour in parliament house, that workplace has seen reforms, with new independent processes for providing support and handling complaints. People report conduct has improved.</p>
<p>Regardless of this, many members of the public, hearing the news reports of this week, will conclude little has changed. And some voters might think politicians should be talking less about their workplace and more about the issues confronting those in the world outside. </p>
<p>FRIDAY UPDATE: DUTTON SAYS VAN SHOULD QUIT PARLIAMENT </p>
<p>Peter Dutton has said that it would be “in everyone’s best interests” if Van resigned from parliament. “And I hope he’s able to do that sooner than later.” The opposition leader also revealed he was aware of another allegation against Van.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207840/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Federal politics, the tone of which had seemed better than in the last parliamentary term, once again descended into a toxic mire.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2076272023-06-13T08:12:11Z2023-06-13T08:12:11ZKaty Gallagher says she didn’t alert Albanese or Wong to the pending Brittany Higgins’ interview<p>Finance Minister Katy Gallagher has categorically denied misleading the Senate over her prior knowledge of the Brittany Higgins interview, but refused to be drawn on what discussion she might have had with Higgins or her partner David Sharaz at the time. </p>
<p>Gallagher has, however, said she did not communicate anything about the interview, which was to be aired on The Project, to Anthony Albanese, Labor Senate leader Penny Wong, their staffs, or her own staff. </p>
<p>“I was provided with information in the days before the allegations were first reported, and I did nothing with that information,” she said in a statement to the Senate. “Absolutely nothing. I was asked to keep it to myself, and I did.”</p>
<p>Later, under concerted opposition interrogation, she declined – on the grounds of confidentiality – to say whether she had been supplied with the yet-to-be broadcast Project interview, as has been reported. She also warded off questioning about whether she had given feedback. </p>
<p>In a Senate estimates committee hearing in 2021, Gallagher said she’d had no knowledge. She was replying to Liberal then-minister Linda Reynolds’ claim a Labor senator had warned her two weeks before Higgins made public her rape allegation of the then-opposition’s plan to use an incident in her office politically. </p>
<p>Higgins alleged she was raped in Reynolds’ office in 2019 by fellow staffer Bruce Lehrmann, which he denied. (Lehrmann was not named in The Project interview.)</p>
<p>Gallagher said in her statement: “I was shocked at the assertion made by Senator Reynolds with the clear implication that I was responsible or had some involvement with making that story public. </p>
<p>"That was not true. It was never true, and I responded to that allegation by saying no one had any knowledge.” </p>
<p>She said she explained to Reynolds the same night that she’d been given “a heads up about the allegations in the days before they became public, an explanation she accepted at the time”. </p>
<p>Gallagher also said she’d had no role in the payout the Commonwealth has made to Higgins. </p>
<p>Earlier, at the Labor caucus meeting, Anthony Albanese declared the caucus was “1000%” behind her. </p>
<p>Albanese heaped praise on Gallagher, who is also Minister for Women, telling her “we thank you, we honour you, we’re with you”. </p>
<p>He told caucus that “no government has done more to put women at the centre of policy making than what has happened under Katy Gallagher”.</p>
<p>He described her as “a person of extraordinary integrity”, saying the attack on her was unfair, unjustified, and unscrupulous. No backward step would be taken, he said. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-brittany-higgins-story-continues-its-damaging-trail-with-no-end-in-sight-207500">View from The Hill: Brittany Higgins story continues its damaging trail, with no end in sight</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Opposition leader Peter Dutton told the Coalition party meeting it was “an open and shut case” that Gallagher had misled the Senate.</p>
<p>“It is increasingly clear that a group of Labor operatives conspired to maximise the damage. It was absolutely brazen. Labor used an alleged rape victim for political purposes.”</p>
<p>He said it was entirely appropriate for the opposition to put pressure on Labor to answer the questions.</p>
<p>Labor is attacking the Coalition for taking up this issue, arguing this will deter young women coming forward when they have been sexually assaulted. Albanese said “the real tragedy is the impact this will have on any woman contemplating coming forward”.</p>
<p>Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus condemned the leaking of private court material, which has appeared widely in the media. </p>
<p>Answering a question from crossbencher Zali Steggall he said “I am deeply concerned about the apparent unauthorised publication of material produced as a result of a subpoena in the criminal trial of Mr Bruce Lehrmann.</p>
<p>"Material produced to a court in response to a subpoena is subject to an implied undertaking from the parties who receive it, that it won’t be used for purposes other than for those court proceedings.” </p>
<p>He said the police were examining a complaint about this. The Ten Network has taken the leak to the police. </p>
<p>Steggall said in a statement: “The media should not have a leave pass on people’s right to privacy. </p>
<p>"Media publication of leaked private material produced for a police investigation undermines trust and confidence in the criminal justice system for victims. This is not in the public interest.”</p>
<p>Reynolds on Tuesday began legal action against the Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek, alleging Plibersek had defamed her in comments this week about her handling of the Higgins matter.</p>
<p>Meanwhile former prime minister Scott Morrison told parliament he and Fiona Brown, a staffer in then-minister Reynolds office who dealt with the Higgins case, had different recollections about whether they had spoken about the matter. </p>
<p>Morrison had told the House in 2021 that he had spoken with Brown, who by then was working in his office, <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/fiona-brown-on-the-brittany-higginsbruce-lehrman-saga-i-was-shot-by-the-metoo-firing-squad/news-story/c3587711aea8e1b2af777e6b3b8ee293">but Brown told the Weekend Australian</a> that he had not. </p>
<p>In a Tuesday statement, Morrison said: “While I believed my response to be accurate at the time, I cannot, obviously, fully discount that her recollection of those events now is the more accurate. However, I reject absolutely any suggestion of deliberate intent in any such possible inaccuracy in my response.”</p>
<p>Morrison at the weekend spoke to Brown – who had said in the interview that she had felt unsupported by Morrison and his office. </p>
<p>He told parliament, “It was and remains my strong view that Ms Brown did all she could to provide support to Ms Higgins at that time.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207627/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Anthony Albanese declared the caucus was 1000% behind Katy Gallagher, as the Finance Minister fights off allegations of misleading parliament while in opposition in 2021Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2075002023-06-12T09:14:38Z2023-06-12T09:14:38ZView from The Hill: Brittany Higgins story continues its damaging trail, with no end in sight<p>The Brittany Higgins saga has damaged almost everyone it has touched, or who’s touched it. </p>
<p>It will forever haunt Higgins, who alleged she was raped in 2019 in a minister’s office, and Bruce Lehrmann, who denied committing the alleged assault. An aborted trial has meant there is no legal judgement.</p>
<p>It helped destroy Scott Morrison. It deeply scarred Linda Reynolds, the minister in question, and had an impact on Fiona Brown, Reynolds’ staffer at the time who dealt with the matter. </p>
<p>In fresh rounds of this story that never goes away, more people are being dragged down, to greater or lesser degrees: the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions, police, some in the media. Now, Finance Minister Katy Gallagher is in the political frame. </p>
<p>After The Australian’s recent publication of texts between Higgins and her partner David Sharaz, exchanged in the run-up to the airing of Higgins’ 2021 interview with Ten’s Lisa Wilkinson, Gallagher faces allegations of misleading parliament. </p>
<p>In a testy exchange with Reynolds at a Senate estimates committee in 2021, Gallagher insisted she’d had no knowledge before the story broke. </p>
<p>Reynolds had claimed she’d been told by a Labor senator (who was the late Kimberley Kitching) “two weeks before about what you were intending to do with the story in my office”.</p>
<p>At the hearing Labor’s Senate leader Penny Wong immediately declared she’d had no knowledge, while Gallagher said categorically, “No one had any knowledge,” adding angrily, “how dare you!” </p>
<p>Reynolds subsequently said Gallagher and Wong later that day told her they’d had some prior indication but had nothing to do with the matter going public.</p>
<p>In the text exchange Sharaz, anxious to ensure the story would become an issue politically, flagged he’d shared information with Gallagher, whom he knew. He believed she would be useful in pursuing the matter when the Wilkinson interview was broadcast. </p>
<p>Gallagher at the weekend admitted she was told “there was going to be some public reporting that a young woman [was] making serious allegations about events that had occurred in a minister’s office”. Wong also qualified her position, saying she didn’t know “full details of the allegations before the story became public”. </p>
<p>The opposition is calling for Gallagher’s resignation or sacking, but that won’t be happening. </p>
<p>While her statement to the committee was misleading, Gallagher was not a minister. Indeed, even ministers do not fall on their sword these days for what was once considered the serious sin of misleading parliament. (In the 1980s, Hawke government minister John Brown did so, in the wake of an answer he gave to an opposition question.) </p>
<p>Precisely what Labor knew before the story broke remains unclear, as does precisely who in Labor knew about it. The Kitching leak indicated the senior Labor women in the Senate were aware – did they pass anything on? </p>
<p>But there was nothing improper about Gallagher receiving information – oppositions get alerts all the time. The issue was her denial at the Senate committee. </p>
<p>Labor will stare down the opposition’s attacks. It can counter by saying returning to the issue brings fresh trauma for Higgins, and the private text messages should never have been leaked (where they came from is unknown).</p>
<p>If it chooses, Labor can raise Brown’s weekend claims that, when the heat was on her over her handling of the Higgins matter, she received little support from Scott Morrison and his office (to which she’d returned by the time the story broke). Her weekend interview with The Australian carried the implication Morrison may have misled parliament when he told the House of Representatives he’d spoken with her about the matter (Brown said he hadn’t). </p>
<p>There’s unlikely to be much mileage for the opposition in the pursuit of Gallagher – although that’s not to say she doesn’t have questions to answer.</p>
<p>As Anthony Albanese has pointed out, the issue was about the former government, not the then opposition. For the Liberals to revisit it is to hark back to the Morrison days – bad territory for the Coalition.</p>
<p>Moreover, people have entrenched views about the Higgins matter and few opinions will shift. </p>
<p>Anyway, the public are now preoccupied with a range of bread-and-butter issues. They’re unlikely to focus on, or care about, the ins-and-outs of who in Labor knew what when.</p>
<p>But Reynolds cares a lot. All along she felt wrongly targeted, believing she behaved properly. Most recently, she was angered when not allowed into the mediation that saw Higgins receive a large sum of Commonwealth money. She wanted to mount her defence against the claims made about her and her office.</p>
<p>Reynolds intends to refer this payout to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which commences operating on July 1. </p>
<p>Regardless of that, in the name of transparency, the government should provide the details of the payment. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, there’s a lot still to come in this story, even apart from what happens in defamation actions Lehrmann has launched. On the basis of the evidence we heard, the ACT inquiry into the conduct of criminal justice agencies in the case could be set to deliver a hefty load of brickbats in its report, due at the end of next month.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207500/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In fresh rounds of this story that never goes away, now Finance Minister Katy Gallagher is in the political frame facing allegations of misleading parliamentMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2050372023-05-04T12:38:45Z2023-05-04T12:38:45ZControversial ParentsNext program to be scrapped next year<p>The unpopular ParentsNext program is to be scrapped by the Albanese government from July 1 next year. </p>
<p>In the meantime, compulsory requirements for participants in the program, introduced by the Coalition government, are to be paused.</p>
<p>Abolishing ParentsNext was recommended by the government’s <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/groups-councils-and-committees/economic-inclusion-advisory-committee#:%7E:text=In%20November%202022%2C%20the%20Government,economic%20inclusion%20and%20tackling%20disadvantage.">Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee</a> and its <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/office-women/womens-economic-equality/womens-economic-equality-taskforce">Women’s Economic Equality Taskforce</a>. </p>
<p>The Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher, and the Employment Minister, Tony Burke, said women around the country had been telling the government the program “is punitive, counterproductive and causes harm”.</p>
<p>Under the program, originally conceived as an attempt to help very young and vulnerable single mothers, participants have been required to attend appointments, negotiate participation plans, and report on agreed activities. If they fail to do what is required, they can have their benefits suspended. </p>
<p>The program was rolled out for women with children under six, with the Coalition government saying it would benefit those at risk of long term welfare dependency. The plan was to assist these parents prepare for jobs by the time their children went to school. </p>
<p>The welfare sector and a recent parliamentary inquiry have criticised the program. The inquiry said it was “locked into a punitive frame and does too much harm for the good it also does”. </p>
<p>The inquiry, which was set up by Burke, found the program was “polarising”. </p>
<p>“Numerous parents we met with explained that ParentsNext has helped them to build confidence, connect with employers, and find paid work. Yet many others think it’s something close to evil and must be scrapped, describing the compliance process as re-traumatising and akin to coercive control,” the committee chair, Labor’s Julian Hill. said in his forward to the inquiry’s report. “ParentsNext is not as bad as many say, but not as great as others claim.” </p>
<p>The inquiry recommended the program be scrapped and replaced with “a supportive pre-vocational service developed via a co-design process”. It said that in the interim the present program should have its onerous elements removed. </p>
<p>Gallagher and Burke said in a statement that at the election Labor “committed to listen to women’s experiences and make decisions that make their lives better and fairer”.</p>
<p>The women’s taskforce said ParentsNext should be replaced by “a new evidence-based program co-designed with young parents, and based in principles of encouragement, support, flexibility and meeting their needs”.</p>
<p>In another measure for women, next week’s budget is set to liberalise the eligibility for the single parent payment. At present a single mother loses this when her youngest child turns eight. She then has to go on JobSeeker, which is paid at a much lower rate. The new cut off point could be when the youngest child turns 13 or 14.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/205037/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher, said women around the country had been telling the government the program “is punitive, counterproductive and causes harm”Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1925062022-10-14T11:27:14Z2022-10-14T11:27:14ZPaid parental leave extended to 26 weeks by 2026, with pressure on dads to share more early caring<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/489791/original/file-20221014-20-3gudu0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C3%2C1064%2C619&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">unknown</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Government-funded paid parental leave will be extended, and more pressure placed on fathers to share caring for babies, under an initiative to be unveiled by Anthony Albanese on Saturday. </p>
<p>Parental leave will be lengthened by six weeks, phased in, to total 26 weeks by 2026, with use-it-or-lose-it provisions directed to having fathers undertake a greater part of the early parenting. </p>
<p>Leave will be able to be taken in blocks between periods of work. Single parents will be entitled to the full 26 weeks.</p>
<p>The present scheme is for 18 weeks government-funded leave to care for a newborn. There is a separate “Dad and Partner” payment for two weeks.</p>
<p>The government says it will introduce reforms to modernise the system and improve flexibility from July next year. From July 1 2024 the time will start lengthening, with two extra weeks put on each year until the scheme reaches 26 weeks from July 2026. </p>
<p>The government’s women’s economic equality taskforce, chaired by Sam Mostyn, will advise on details of the model, including what mix of flexible weeks and the use-it-or-lose-it component for each parent are considered best. Details will be in the October 25 budget. </p>
<p>Albanese will formally announce the initiative when he addresses the NSW ALP conference on Saturday morning. </p>
<p>In his speech, an extract of which was released ahead of delivery, Albanese says that, like the government’s child care policy, extending PPL is an economic reform. </p>
<p>“By 2026, every family with a new baby will be able to access a total of six months paid leave, shared between the two parents,” he says. </p>
<p>“We will give families more leave and more flexibility, so people are able to use their weeks in a way that works best for them.</p>
<p>"Our plan will mean more families take up this leave, share in that precious time – and share the caring responsibilities more equally.</p>
<p>"This plan will support dads who want to take time off work to be more involved in those early months.</p>
<p>"It’s a modern policy, for modern families. It delivers more choice, it offers greater security – and it rewards aspiration.”</p>
<p>Albanese says that extended leave was one of the clearest calls that came out of the recent jobs summit.</p>
<p>“Businesses, unions, experts and economists all understand that providing more choice, more support and more flexibility for families and more opportunity for women boosts participation and productivity across the economy.”</p>
<p>He says the government sees this as “the baseline, a national minimum standard.</p>
<p>"We are encouraged that there are already employers across Australia competing to offer working parents the best possible deal. And we want to see more of it.</p>
<p>"Because a parental leave system that empowers the full and equal participation of women will be good for business, good for families and good for the economy.”</p>
<p>Minister for Women Katy Gallagher said that “having a child shouldn’t be an economic barrier for families or indeed act as a handbrake on the broader economy.</p>
<p>"Right now, this burden is borne disproportionately by women but we know that good women’s policy is also good economic policy and this decision is evidence of that.”</p>
<p>Minister for Social Services Amanda Rishworth said: “This will benefit mums, it will benefit dads, it’s good for children, and it will be a huge boost to the economy. </p>
<p>"We know that treating parenting as an equal partnership helps to improve gender equality.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/192506/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The present scheme is for 18 weeks government-funded leave to care for a newborn. There is a separate “Dad and Partner” payment for two weeks.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1476512022-06-09T10:08:15Z2022-06-09T10:08:15ZGrattan on Friday: If the Albanese government did what really needs to be done, it would be a very big target<p>Usually the speeches of treasury secretaries are relatively bland, echoes of their political masters. But an address this week from Steven Kennedy was something quite different. </p>
<p>One economist described it as “unplugged”. It gave not just a blunt assessment of the challenges the Australian economy has, but offered a bracing critique of what needs to be done. </p>
<p>Kennedy mightn’t be a household name, but people should remember that it was advice from him and his colleagues that steered an initially reluctant Morrison government to JobKeeper, which kept so many businesses and workers afloat during the pandemic. </p>
<p>The Kennedy speech may reflect the Albanese government’s view that it wants a public service that’s more independent in its advice. </p>
<p>On the other hand it might involve some cunning politics, because it was run past Treasurer Jim Chalmers (the usual protocol). Kennedy is saying things that it would be difficult for the treasurer to say. </p>
<p>Kennedy’s core fiscal messages can be boiled down to these imperatives. The budget needs to be brought under control, so we are in a position to respond to future shocks. This means spending must be contained. And the tax system should be made fit for purpose. </p>
<p>Anthony Albanese won office by making himself a small target. What Kennedy is advising, for the best of reasons, would make the government a big target. </p>
<p>Albanese said before the election he wanted to leave a legacy. You don’t leave a legacy by just managing government, or even by undertaking some limited reform. </p>
<p>The Hawke-Keating government left a major legacy. It did so by tackling robustly the issues that circumstances threw up to it. What it ended up doing far outstripped the program on which it was elected. </p>
<p>A dive into the detail of Kennedy’s speech shows the magnitude of his prescription. </p>
<p>Kennedy says post-pandemic government spending will be higher than spending before COVID. Excluding temporary direct COVID support, payments as a share of GDP are expected to average 26.4% in the coming decade, compared with 24.8% in the decades before the pandemic. </p>
<p>“Most of the additional structural spending is driven by spending on the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), aged care, defence, health and infrastructure. Further pressures exist in all these areas,” Kennedy says. </p>
<p>There are two ways to fund the country’s priorities – make structural savings and/or raise additional tax. </p>
<p>For the Albanese government, this is what the policy wonks call a “wicked problem”. </p>
<p>You’ll note that at every opportunity Chalmers says he and Finance Minister Katy Gallagher are working on savings for the October budget. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/expect-the-rba-to-go-easy-on-interest-rate-hikes-from-now-on-we-cant-afford-rates-to-climb-as-steeply-as-the-market-expects-184539">Expect the RBA to go easy on interest rate hikes from now on – we can't afford rates to climb as steeply as the market expects</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the election campaign Labor talked about finding savings from “rorts” in the Morrison government’s spending. But the magnitude of the task will go well beyond redirecting funds from Morrison waste. </p>
<p>The coming budget, the first of the term, is the logical time for a really tough look at spending. But this is difficult in practical terms and politically hazardous. </p>
<p>The government needs to avoid breaking promises, which forfeits public trust. </p>
<p>Apart from that, containing spending in areas that at the same time demand more spending is very hard. </p>
<p>In aged care, what the government has promised doesn’t include the cost of its commitment to funding the increase in wages the Fair Work Commission will deliver for workers in the sector. </p>
<p>Then there’s the NDIS. It is heading for financial unsustainability. But any effort to reform it will be fraught, because some people will lose, or not be able to obtain, help to which they feel entitled. Labor’s policy is to “stop the unfair cuts to NDIS participants’ plans with an expert review mechanism”. Bill Shorten, with ministerial oversight, has an uneviable job ahead of him.</p>
<p>Politicians know the community is reluctant to tolerate having “losers” from reforms, even if the reforms are necessary and for the overall good. And the budget situation means “losers” can’t be compensated or paid off as readily as they’ve been in the past. </p>
<p>Kennedy’s message on the tax side is that over time inflation and real wages growth (if it comes!) will result in higher average personal tax rates. </p>
<p>“Unless other taxes or revenues increase, there is little prospect of having sufficient fiscal space to give this back to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts. This would see average personal tax rates increase towards record levels, increasing the fiscal burden on wage and salary earners.” </p>
<p>Ongoing review of the tax base and tax concessions will be important, Kennedy says. </p>
<p>True – but who is up for serious tax reform these days? Albanese’s election commitment was not to raise taxes, or have new ones. The only exception was to crack down on multinationals’ tax avoidance. </p>
<p>The OECD annual economic outlook, released this week, says the current economic recovery “would also be a good time to reduce Australia’s heavy reliance on taxation of personal incomes, which adds to the vulnerability of public finances to an ageing population”. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-energy-market-operator-to-have-power-to-acquire-gas-for-emergencies-174962">Australian Energy Market Operator to have power to acquire gas for emergencies</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It suggests, among other things, that “consideration should be given to increasing or broadening the base of the Goods and Services Tax”. </p>
<p>Hands up those politicians willing to launch into that battle. </p>
<p>Kennedy also had things to say about our low growth in productivity. He didn’t have time to get into the climate change and energy story. </p>
<p>Energy, a key part of the further rise in inflation we’ll see in coming months, is the current major (but by no means only) headache for the government. </p>
<p>The batch of measures from Wednesday’s federal and state energy ministers meeting was useful but will, as Energy Minister Chris Bowen conceded, provide no instant answer. The gas crisis will be painful in the short run; the vital transition to clean energy will be testing over the medium term. </p>
<p>The Albanese government can (rightly) blame the former government for not adequately paving the way for the transition. Its record is a disgrace. But blame doesn’t solve the here-and-now problems, and in the public’s mind it has a limited shelf life. </p>
<p>Again, the government finds itself hostage to expectations. The causes of the current gas crisis are largely outside government control (although we should have been better prepared). But many people want the government to cushion them through it by subsidies, which would exacerbate the already serious budgetary problem. </p>
<p>And that brings us to the question of political capital. In its rhetoric the government is being careful with this capital. Chalmers talks inclusively when outlining economic issues – about having a “conversation” with Australians. Albanese highlights consensus. The planned September jobs summit is about involvement. </p>
<p>Nevertheless the problems the government faces in coming months are so substantial that it will be likely spending political capital, including with the October budget if it does a portion of what it should do. </p>
<p>Much of the reform Kennedy urges might have to wait until a second term (assuming there is one). But that raises an awkward question: does the government make itself a bigger target at the next election by flagging robust change? </p>
<p>As for the present: so far in the new government Albanese has had the easy ride, with his two overseas trips, while Chalmers and Bowen have had to convey quite grim news. Now it’s time for the prime minister to step up and be very visible on the economic issues.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/147651/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Usually the speeches of treasury secretaries are relatively bland, echoes of their political masters. But an address this week from Steven Kennedy was something quite different.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1795802022-03-18T09:35:48Z2022-03-18T09:35:48ZView from The Hill: Labor’s treatment of Kimberley Kitching – ‘tough politics’ or ‘bullying’?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/453008/original/file-20220318-10615-9969lk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sam Mooy/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The so-called “mean girls” story following the death of Victorian Labor senator Kimberley Kitching, has opened up issues of alleged bad behaviour by very senior figures within the Labor party. </p>
<p>The allegations are serious, and Anthony Albanese and his colleagues were never going to get away with denying them oxygen by pushing them aside, as they hoped. </p>
<p>But the fact the claims and denials are being played out even before Kitching’s funeral takes them into an extraordinary realm. </p>
<p>Although only junior in the parliamentary pecking order, Kitching – who was a close friend and ally of former Labor leader Bill Shorten – made herself a substantial presence in the senate, and a strong voice on issues including China and national security. </p>
<p>Some of her views were more akin to those of the Liberals than to her own side, and she had good friends in the government. </p>
<p>For these and other reasons, she became a square peg in the round Labor hole. She was accused of leaking by Labor’s Senate leadership and frozen out, including being removed from the tactics committee. </p>
<p>From what we know now, she was highly upset by her treatment, but she also fought back, reportedly late last year complaining of bullying by her colleagues to a consultant brought in as part of the effort to clean up Parliament House’s toxic culture. </p>
<p>Earlier, she had complained to deputy Labor leader Richard Marles about how she was being treated. Marles refuses to be drawn, repeatedly saying in a Friday TV interview, “I’m just not going to walk down that path”.</p>
<p>Apart from the pressure she felt under in the parliamentary party, recently Kitching had been stressed by her preselection being up in the air. </p>
<p>Kitching’s friends allege Labor’s Senate leader Penny Wong, her deputy Kristina Keneally and Katy Gallagher, manager of opposition business in the Senate, bullied her. The Australian reported Kitching and her supporters had dubbed these senators “the mean girls”. </p>
<p>Like Albanese, at first the senators refused to engage with the allegations. By Friday, with more information dribbling out, this had become unsustainable. </p>
<p>Wong, Keneally and Gallagher issued a statement saying: “The allegations of bullying are untrue. Other assertions which have been made are similarly inaccurate.” </p>
<p>The statement went on: “Politics is a challenging profession. Contests can be robust and interactions difficult. All of its participants at times act or speak in ways that can impact on others negatively. We have and do reflect on this, as individuals and as leaders.</p>
<p>"It is for this reason Senator Wong wishes to place on record a response to specific claims regarding an exchange in a meeting with Senator Kitching.” </p>
<p>This related to a 2019 discussion in Labor about school children participating in civil disobedience at climate protests. </p>
<p>Kitching’s opposition to this brought the response from Wong who said “if you had children, you might understand why there is a climate emergency.”</p>
<p>In Friday’s statement, Wong said when the incident was publicly reported more than two years ago she had apologised to Kitching. </p>
<p>“Senator Wong understood that apology was accepted. The comments that have been reported do not reflect Senator Wong’s views, as those who know her would understand, and she deeply regrets pain these reports have caused,” the statement said.</p>
<p>While it will seem shocking to many people that all this is playing out even before Kitching’s funeral on Monday, it is also relevant that most of the information and claims being put forward are from Kitching’s friends. </p>
<p>Albanese has denounced the way the Kitching issue has been “politicised”. He defended his senior Senate women, saying “politics is a really tough business”. </p>
<p>The latter observation is something Kitching would have understood extremely well. In the Victorian Labor party over the years she was one of the very tough players herself. </p>
<p>In the context of the battle between government and opposition, the internal Labor claims about how one of its women was treated reduce the scope for Labor to point fingers at the Liberals, who’ve had much trouble themselves on this front.</p>
<p>There have been calls for Albanese to launch an inquiry into the allegations. With the alleged victim dead, it is hard to see what this could achieve. And that’s leaving aside the political considerations, when Labor is weeks from the election. </p>
<p>There’s no doubt Kitching was subjected to harsh treatment by her party. Whether this is judged as “tough politics” or “bullying” is more complex, depending on who is doing the judging. It can be a fine, albeit very important, line between the two.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/179580/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Whether the late senator’s treatment was unfairly harsh or part of the tough business of politics depends on who you ask – and in public life, the line between the two can be very fine indeed.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1616622021-05-27T04:03:55Z2021-05-27T04:03:55ZPolitics with Michelle Grattan: Katy Gallagher on the battle to hold the government to account<p>When Katy Gallagher joined the podcast this week, she was running between sessions of Senate estimates.</p>
<p>Among other issues, she and other Labor senators pressed (with mixed results) for answers about the handling of the Brittany Higgins matter. </p>
<p>Gallagher has another role in the pursuit of accountability. As Chair of the Senate’s Select Committee on COVID-19, she’s spearheading the quest for detail on what the government is doing on both the health and economic fronts. </p>
<p>As shadow minister for finance, she’s also been vocal in the opposition’s attack on the budget - in particular the government’s failure to increase real wages despite considerable spending.</p>
<p>Gallagher speaks about the difficulty in getting substantive information. </p>
<p>“We have had pretty critical information withheld from the [COVID] committee…”</p>
<p>“All of the modelling and assumptions that went into the economic rescue packages, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars going out the door. All the health advice that’s been provided to the government, the decisions that have been taken about border closures, about vaccinations, about why they went with certain companies and not others.</p>
<p>"The government has refused to provide that information. And I think that creates a problem for us in properly scrutinising it.”</p>
<p><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/politics-with-michelle-grattan/id703425900?mt=2"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233721/original/file-20180827-75984-1gfuvlr.png" alt="Listen on Apple Podcasts" width="268" height="68"></a> <a href="https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly90aGVjb252ZXJzYXRpb24uY29tL2F1L3BvZGNhc3RzL3BvbGl0aWNzLXdpdGgtbWljaGVsbGUtZ3JhdHRhbi5yc3M"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233720/original/file-20180827-75978-3mdxcf.png" alt="" width="268" height="68"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-conversation-4/politics-with-michelle-grattan"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233716/original/file-20180827-75981-pdp50i.png" alt="Stitcher" width="300" height="88"></a> <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Politics-with-Michelle-Grattan-p227852/"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233723/original/file-20180827-75984-f0y2gb.png" alt="Listen on TuneIn" width="318" height="125"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://radiopublic.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-WRElBZ"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-152" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233717/original/file-20180827-75990-86y5tg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" alt="Listen on RadioPublic" width="268" height="87"></a> <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/5NkaSQoUERalaLBQAqUOcC"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237984/original/file-20180925-149976-1ks72uy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" width="268" height="82"></a> </p>
<h2>Additional audio</h2>
<p><a href="http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/The_Big_Loop_-_FML_original_podcast_score/Lee_Rosevere_-_The_Big_Loop_-_FML_original_podcast_score_-_10_A_List_of_Ways_to_Die">A List of Ways to Die</a>, Lee Rosevere, from Free Music Archive.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/161662/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Michelle Grattan discusses the finding of Senate estimates with Katy GallagherMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1615122021-05-25T12:08:21Z2021-05-25T12:08:21ZView from The Hill: Morrison’s top staffer doesn’t find colleagues briefed against Higgins’ partner but reminds them of ‘standards’<p>The report from John Kunkel, Scott Morrison’s chief of staff, on whether the Prime Minister’s office briefed against Brittany Higgins’ partner David Sharaz has been drafted with Jesuitical subtlety.</p>
<p><a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/1591/Kunkel_Report.pdf?1621992704">Kunkel’s four-page report to the Prime Minister</a> says, in essence, that he couldn’t make any finding against Morrison’s staff, but they needed to watch their Ps and Qs in future. And while Higgins’ claim about negative backgrounding wasn’t upheld, Kunkel was sure she was sincere about it.</p>
<p>Higgins claimed the PMO backgrounded against Sharaz after she went public early this year with her allegation she was raped in 2019 by a colleague in a minister’s office. She had been told about the backgrounding by the media, she said.</p>
<p>After interviewing Morrison’s senior communications staff, Kunkel concluded that on the first-hand evidence before him and given the seriousness of the allegation, “I do not make a finding that negative briefing against Mr Sharaz of the sort alleged has taken place”.</p>
<p>Such a finding “would be based upon hearsay (in some instances, second- or third-hand)”.</p>
<p>“The evidence before me falls well short of the standard that would be needed to arrive at such a finding in conformity with due process.”</p>
<p>But, he stressed, he wasn’t denying that Higgins’ beliefs about the adverse briefing were sincerely held. “Plainly, they are”.</p>
<p>“My conclusion, based upon the evidence presented to me, should in no way be taken as a reflection upon the honesty or sincerity of Ms Higgins.”</p>
<p>Moreover, he had a sharp warning for the Morrison staff. “While I am not in a position to make a finding that the alleged activity took place, the fact that those allegations have been made serves as an important reminder of the need for your staff to hold themselves to the highest standards.</p>
<p>"I have accordingly reinforced with the office the paramount importance of maintaining high professional and ethical standards. I further underlined the importance of privacy issues when dealing with highly sensitive, personal matters.”</p>
<p>During a day when the Higgins matter returned on several fronts to harass the government, Morrison tabled the Kunkel report in question time, as he came under pressure from the opposition.</p>
<p>But while it got his staff off the hook (more or less) over the alleged briefing, the report’s release simply stoked the political fire around the Higgins issue, which was pursued simultaneously in two Senate estimates hearings on Tuesday.</p>
<p>Labor, which had been asking about the Kunkel report, angrily demanded to know why Morrison had tabled it without giving Higgins any warning. Earlier, Labor’s Katy Gallagher had asked Senate Leader Simon Birmingham to find out whether three of Morrison’s staff, whom she named, had been interviewed.</p>
<p>In his report, Kunkel said all senior members of Morrison’s media team – whom he did not name – rejected the allegation of backgrounding against Sharaz to undermine his reputation.</p>
<p>Members of the media team had told him “certain journalists” had raised Sharaz’s work history – he had been employed in the Prime Minister’s department and at Sky News. The staff had referred questions of his departmental employment to the department.</p>
<p>But Higgins, when Kunkel interviewed her, told him journalists had informed her that Sharaz had been portrayed as disgruntled after his time in the department and at Sky News and that his alleged “grudge” was behind her decision to go public with her rape allegation.</p>
<p>Kunkel said no member of the press gallery recounted, or substantiated, firsthand experience of the alleged activity. A journalist who had contacted Kunkel earlier about the alleged backgrounding did not want to participate in the inquiry.</p>
<p>Journalists interviewed had referred to “corridor conversations” in the press gallery after Higgins made her allegation of sexual assault. These conversations were about the incident itself, Higgins, her partner, and what the PMO staff knew or didn’t know about the alleged rape incident, and when they knew.</p>
<p>“Members of the PMO media team participated in those discussions in the context of responding to inquiries and in the ordinary course of their interactions with the press gallery,” the report said.</p>
<p>Labor’s Senate leader Penny Wong said the Kunkel report “doesn’t exonerate anybody – he didn’t make a finding it didn’t occur”.</p>
<p>While Kunkel’s report is now public, the secretary of the Prime Minister’s Department, Phil Gaetjens, played a dead bat under questioning at Senate estimates about his investigation. Gaetjens is inquiring into who in the PMO knew what and when about Higgins’ rape allegation, which she first made within government in 2019.</p>
<p>Gaetjens refused to disclose how many people he had interviewed, citing personal privacy.</p>
<p>He also refused to be drawn on whether PMO staff had lawyers in his inquiry and if so, whether they were paid for by the taxpayer.</p>
<p>Gaetjens is yet to meet with Higgins.</p>
<p>He indicated his report was still some time away. “I would certainly expect it to be in probably weeks, not days and certainly not months.”</p>
<p>An official of the Prime Minister’s department told senate estimates that when Morrison met Higgins recently, Higgins had four people with her, including one or two lawyers. A government lawyer was also present. </p>
<p>The Federal Police Commissioner Reece Kershaw, said in relation to Higgins’ rape allegation, “a brief of evidence is likely to be provided to the ACT director of public prosecutions in coming weeks”. </p>
<p>Kershaw revealed that in the wake of the Higgins public allegation, 40 reports had been received by the AFP since February 24 relating to 19 different allegations of misconduct involving parliamentarians, their staff or official establishments. Some related to sexual misconduct. Some were historical.</p>
<p>Twelve reports were identified as sensitive investigations, 10 were referred to state and territory police for assessment, one was with the AFP for ongoing inquiries and one had been finalised. </p>
<p>Seven matters did not relate to electorate officers, ministerial staff or official establishments. Of those five had been referred to state and territory police and two concluded with no criminal offence identified.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/161512/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The report from John Kunkel, Scott Morrison’s chief of staff, into whether the Prime Minister’s office briefed against Brittany Higgins’ partner David Sharaz has been drafted with Jesuitical subtlety.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1477392020-10-08T00:36:41Z2020-10-08T00:36:41ZPolitics with Michelle Grattan: a budget for a pandemic<p>With the budget’s expected eye-watering debt and deficit numbers, the question remains whether the huge spending will be enough to fight the coronavirus slump.</p>
<p><iframe id="kKbWD" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/kKbWD/5/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Minister for Finance Mathias Cormann and Shadow Minister Katy Gallagher joined the podcast to discuss the budget’s entrails.</p>
<p>The government has faced criticism for benchmarking the much vaunted tax cuts against 2017-18, making them appear larger. Cormann said 2017-18 is the appropriate benchmark, and wouldn’t be drawn on giving further detail.</p>
<p>“The costing has been done on the basis that we’ve published it.”</p>
<p>Gallagher declared the budget expressed Scott Morrison’s choice to leave some people without support. </p>
<p>In particular, the decision to leave those on JobSeeker hanging was described by Gallagher as “frankly, just plain mean.”</p>
<p>NOTE: after this podcast was recorded, Scott Morrison announced the government will nominated Cormann for secretary-general of the OECD, and that he will leave Parliament on October 30.</p>
<p><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/politics-with-michelle-grattan/id703425900?mt=2"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233721/original/file-20180827-75984-1gfuvlr.png" alt="Listen on Apple Podcasts" width="268" height="68"></a></p><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/politics-with-michelle-grattan/id703425900?mt=2">
</a><p><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/politics-with-michelle-grattan/id703425900?mt=2"></a> <a href="https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly90aGVjb252ZXJzYXRpb24uY29tL2F1L3BvZGNhc3RzL3BvbGl0aWNzLXdpdGgtbWljaGVsbGUtZ3JhdHRhbi5yc3M"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233720/original/file-20180827-75978-3mdxcf.png" alt="" width="268" height="68"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-conversation-4/politics-with-michelle-grattan"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233716/original/file-20180827-75981-pdp50i.png" alt="Stitcher" width="300" height="88"></a> <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Politics-with-Michelle-Grattan-p227852/"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233723/original/file-20180827-75984-f0y2gb.png" alt="Listen on TuneIn" width="318" height="125"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://radiopublic.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-WRElBZ"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-152" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233717/original/file-20180827-75990-86y5tg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" alt="Listen on RadioPublic" width="268" height="87"></a> <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/5NkaSQoUERalaLBQAqUOcC"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237984/original/file-20180925-149976-1ks72uy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" width="268" height="82"></a> </p>
<h2>Additional audio</h2>
<p><a href="http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/The_Big_Loop_-_FML_original_podcast_score/Lee_Rosevere_-_The_Big_Loop_-_FML_original_podcast_score_-_10_A_List_of_Ways_to_Die">A List of Ways to Die</a>, Lee Rosevere, from Free Music Archive.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/147739/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Michelle Grattan discusses the budget with Finance Minister Mathias Cormann and Shadow Minister Katy GallagherMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1471272020-09-29T11:00:36Z2020-09-29T11:00:36ZFaster public health response might have saved some aged care residents’ lives: Brendan Murphy<p>Federal Health Department Secretary Brendan Murphy has admitted some COVID deaths in aged care might have been prevented if there had been a quicker public health response.</p>
<p>Murphy, Chief Medical Officer until mid year, told the COVID Senate committee “if the public health response had been more prompt, then we might have avoided some of the scale of the outbreaks in Victoria”.</p>
<p>He said some of the spread among facilities might have been avoided if the federal-state Victorian Aged Care Response Centre (initiated by the Commonwealth) had been stood up earlier – “if we’d been aware, had prior warning, that the public health response may have been compromised”.</p>
<p>It was not possible to say what proportion of aged care deaths could have been prevented, he said.</p>
<p>“As we have said on many occasions, once you had widespread community outbreaks, wide aged care outbreaks and unfortunately, deaths, particularly of people who are very frail and close to end of life, are inevitable.</p>
<p>"But quite likely that with the benefit of hindsight and responding with a response centre … a little bit earlier, we may well have been able to prevent some of the spread.”</p>
<p>Murphy was treading on sensitive ground for the federal government. Aged care is a federal responsibility. The states have responsibility for public health (although the Commonwealth, under the constitution has a quarantine power). </p>
<p>Murphy, who was still giving evidence, later reacted following the chair of the senate committee, Labor’s Katy Gallagher, tweeting:</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1310785562769412097"}"></div></p>
<p>He disputed Gallagher’s interpretation, stressing to the committee that the federal government acted as soon as it was aware the public health response was failing, and that it was not in a position to act earlier.</p>
<p>He described the public health response as “a partnership”.</p>
<p>Murphy also said the minutes of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee were confidential because it is a committee of the national cabinet.</p>
<p>On Wednesday the inquiry into COVID in aged care, done by the aged care royal commission, will be presented to the governor-general. It will be publicly released this week</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/147127/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Federal Health Department Secretary Brendan Murphy has admitted some COVID deaths in aged care might have been prevented if there had been a quicker public health response.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1374842020-04-29T04:41:07Z2020-04-29T04:41:07ZPolitics with Michelle Grattan: Katy Gallagher on the Senate’s coronavirus watchdog<p>Labor’s Katy Gallagher is chair of the Senate committee that will assess the government’s handling of the coronavirus crisis, both its economic and health challenges. It is set for the deep dive, having a final reporting date of mid-2022. </p>
<p>With parliament currently sitting only in fits and starts, Gallagher considers the committee a “key accountability vehicle”.</p>
<p>“We don’t want political grandstanding, we don’t want long winded political arguments, there are other forums for those,” she says. </p>
<p>“We do expect public servants and ministers to attend with information and provide information. I don’t want it to be turned into one of those committees that we see so often where we ask questions and the officials at the table work out how not to answer them”</p>
<p>The committee’s role will be “to explore why decisions were taken and provide that conduit back to the public.”</p>
<h2>New to podcasts?</h2>
<p>Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click <a href="http://pca.st/BVa3#t=3m34s">here</a> to listen to Politics with Michelle Grattan on Pocket Casts).</p>
<p>You can also hear it on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Politics with Michelle Grattan.</p>
<p><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/politics-with-michelle-grattan/id703425900?mt=2"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233721/original/file-20180827-75984-1gfuvlr.png" alt="Listen on Apple Podcasts" width="268" height="68"></a> <a href="https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly90aGVjb252ZXJzYXRpb24uY29tL2F1L3BvZGNhc3RzL3BvbGl0aWNzLXdpdGgtbWljaGVsbGUtZ3JhdHRhbi5yc3M"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233720/original/file-20180827-75978-3mdxcf.png" alt="" width="268" height="68"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-conversation-4/politics-with-michelle-grattan"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233716/original/file-20180827-75981-pdp50i.png" alt="Stitcher" width="300" height="88"></a> <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Politics-with-Michelle-Grattan-p227852/"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233723/original/file-20180827-75984-f0y2gb.png" alt="Listen on TuneIn" width="318" height="125"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://radiopublic.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-WRElBZ"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-152" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233717/original/file-20180827-75990-86y5tg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" alt="Listen on RadioPublic" width="268" height="87"></a> <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/5NkaSQoUERalaLBQAqUOcC"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237984/original/file-20180925-149976-1ks72uy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" width="268" height="82"></a> </p>
<h2>Additional audio</h2>
<p><a href="http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/The_Big_Loop_-_FML_original_podcast_score/Lee_Rosevere_-_The_Big_Loop_-_FML_original_podcast_score_-_10_A_List_of_Ways_to_Die">A List of Ways to Die</a>, Lee Rosevere, from Free Music Archive.</p>
<p><strong>Image:</strong></p>
<p>Mick Tsikas/AAP</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/137484/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>On this episode of Politics with Michelle Grattan, Katy Gallagher joins the podcast to discuss the recently formed select committee into COVID-19Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/962672018-05-09T09:38:29Z2018-05-09T09:38:29ZDual citizenship debacle claims five more MPs – and sounds a stern warning for future parliamentarians<p>In one fell swoop, the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2018/17.html">High Court’s judgment</a> about the eligibility of Katy Gallagher as a Senator disposed of five members of Parliament.</p>
<p>Not only was Gallagher disqualified, but the consequence was that Susan Lamb, Justine Keay, Josh Wilson and Rebekha Sharkie had no legal ground left to stand on. They had to resign, <a href="https://theconversation.com/four-mps-resign-as-citizenship-crisis-causes-more-havoc-96341">and they did</a>. </p>
<p>In each case, although they had initiated the procedure to renounce their foreign citizenship before the nomination date at the last election, that procedure had not been completed in the United Kingdom and they were still formally British citizens on nomination day. That was enough to see them disqualified.</p>
<h2>A change in the law or a clarification?</h2>
<p>The ALP had <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/shortens-citizenship-guarantee-wrecked/news-story/8a2d60091cf23317d05d1619c6b4b21c">previously boasted</a> of its rigorous vetting of its candidates, and expressed certainty they were all validly elected.</p>
<p>What went wrong? Has the High Court changed its interpretation of the Constitution or has it been consistent, as the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/high-court-rules-labor-s-katy-gallagher-ineligible-and-sets-up-four-likely-byelections-20180509-p4ze5f.html">Liberal Party claims</a>?</p>
<p>The answer is that the previous position, as set out by the High Court, was ambiguous and could legitimately have been interpreted in two different ways. What the High Court did was to clarify the law by removing the ambiguity. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-the-high-court-decision-on-katy-gallagher-is-about-and-why-it-matters-96214">Explainer: what the High Court decision on Katy Gallagher is about and why it matters</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>When the issue was first dealt with in the 1992 case of <em><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/60.html">Sykes v Cleary</a></em>, Chief Justice Mason and Justices Toohey and McHugh rejected a strict reading of section 44(i) of the Constitution on the ground that it would:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>result in the disqualification of Australian citizens on whom there was imposed involuntarily by operation of foreign law a continuing foreign nationality, notwithstanding that they had taken reasonable steps to renounce that foreign nationality.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>They considered that it would</p>
<blockquote>
<p>be wrong to interpret the constitutional provision in such a way as to disbar an Australian citizen who had taken all reasonable steps to divest himself or herself of any conflicting allegiance. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Their Honours pointed out that even at federation, Australia was a nation of migrants, and that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>it could scarcely have been intended to disqualify an Australian citizen for election to Parliament on account of his or her continuing to possess a foreign nationality, notwithstanding that he or she had taken reasonable steps to renounce that nationality.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The ambiguity was whether the “reasonable steps test”: (a) only applies where the person would otherwise be disbarred from parliament because he or she was unable to renounce the foreign citizenship by any reasonable means; or (b) applies to all categories of dual citizenship, including those that can readily be renounced by following a reasonable procedure. This would mean that a candidate need only take all the reasonable steps within his or her power to renounce the foreign nationality prior to the nomination date, even if the formal renunciation did not happen until after that date.</p>
<p>Either view about what the court meant could have been fairly taken, but on balance most scholars favoured interpretation (b) because their Honours went on to apply the test of “reasonable steps” to two candidates who had dual citizenship with countries that permitted renunciation. </p>
<p>It was therefore unsurprising that the ALP, in its legal advice to candidates, took interpretation (b), with the consequence that some of its candidates undertook the renunciation process before the nomination date, but not sufficiently early for the renunciation to be completed prior to nomination.</p>
<p>While this approach was legitimate, it was not the most cautious one, as it involved a risk of invalidity if the High Court later decided that (a) was the correct approach.</p>
<p>Doubts arose about this interpretation when the High Court handed down its judgment last year in relation to Barnaby Joyce and the other “citizenship seven” in the <em><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2017/45.html">Re Canavan</a></em> case.</p>
<p>There, when discussing the “reasonable steps test”, the High Court did so solely in the context of the “constitutional imperative” to avoid the “irremediable exclusion” of citizens from being capable of election to parliament.</p>
<p>This left lawyers wondering whether the reasonable steps test applied more broadly, and the court had simply not mentioned it in that context, or whether the Court was confining its application to circumstances where the foreign citizenship could not be renounced at all.</p>
<h2>What the High Court decided in the Katy Gallagher case</h2>
<p>We now have an answer – the court took interpretation (a) above. It held that the “reasonable steps test” only applies where it is impossible or not reasonably possible to renounce the foreign citizenship.</p>
<p>In such a case, the person must still take all reasonable steps within his or her power to renounce that citizenship (but not the “unreasonable” ones). Once this is done, the person can stand for Parliament even though the foreign citizenship continues. </p>
<p>But if the impediment is simply slow processing, or that renunciation is a matter of discretion, this is not enough to trigger the exception. The process of renunciation has to be completed in accordance with the law and procedures of the foreign country before the person nominates as a candidate in a Commonwealth election. </p>
<h2>Has this now resolved all the problems?</h2>
<p>We now have more certainty than we did a year ago. We know that a person can be disqualified for holding dual citizenship, even when it was inherited through parents and the person holding it did not know of its existence. Ignorance is no excuse. We also now know that a person has to complete the process of renunciation of that foreign citizenship before he or she nominates to stand for parliament, even if it takes a long time to complete it. </p>
<p>The only exemption will be if it is impossible to renounce the foreign citizenship or the steps for doing so are unreasonable, such as a requirement that would involve a risk to the person, such as residency in a dangerous country. </p>
<p>It is in this area that there may yet be litigation. Some countries make it very difficult to renounce foreign citizenship, and the court may have to decide in the future about the point at which that difficulty becomes unreasonable. So this may not necessarily be the last of these cases.</p>
<h2>What are the ramifications?</h2>
<p>In practice, it will mean that political parties need to complete their pre-selection processes well before an election to allow sufficient time for any renunciation. If there is a snap election, or where casual vacancies or byelections occur and a candidate is needed quickly, those with dual citizenship may have to be passed over if there is not enough time to renounce the foreign citizenship. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-voters-just-want-citizenship-crisis-fixed-but-it-isnt-that-easy-87201">Grattan on Friday: Voters just want citizenship crisis fixed – but it isn't that easy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It is also likely that arrangements will be made with some countries, such as the United Kingdom, to fast-track processing of renunciation to deal with this problem.</p>
<p>But in other countries, this will not be feasible, so some potential candidates will have to renounce a long time in advance in order to be ready to nominate if the opportunity arises. The message to every aspiring politician is to check your family tree, identify any foreign citizenship you may have and renounce now.</p>
<h2>Can this be fixed?</h2>
<p>Realistically, the only way of removing this problem is by way of a constitutional amendment approved by a referendum. There have been many past proposals to repeal this disqualification, or to replace it with a requirement that all candidates be Australian citizens, or instead to give parliament the power to deal with the issue by legislation. </p>
<p>It would not be necessary to abandon the principle that members of parliament have sole allegiance to Australia. Instead, this could be achieved by legislation that puts control over renunciation of foreign citizenship into Australian hands.</p>
<p>The biggest problem with the current provision is that both the law as to who is a foreign citizen and the procedure to renounce it are outside Australian control.</p>
<p>Would such a referendum be successful? I have my doubts. It is likely to be perceived as something to help politicians, not the people.</p>
<p>But this High Court judgment will make it more difficult for people from some countries to become members of parliament, and that unfairness may provide a stronger argument to support a referendum to change the system.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96267/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anne Twomey has received funding from the Australian Research Council and occasionally does consultancy work for governments and inter-governmental bodies.</span></em></p>Today’s High Court decision against Katy Gallagher has clarified how to interpret the constitution on this matter. But the problem of dual citizenship can only be properly fixed by a referendum.Anne Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/962142018-05-08T20:16:46Z2018-05-08T20:16:46ZExplainer: what the High Court decision on Katy Gallagher is about and why it matters<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218028/original/file-20180508-46359-4wmp1x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Senator Katy Gallagher knew she was a British citizen at the last election, but maintains she took "all reasonable steps" to renounce it.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Over the past two months, things have been uncharacteristically quiet on the dual citizenship front. That is all about to change when the High Court (sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns) hands down its long-awaited decision on the eligibility of Senator Katy Gallagher. Whatever the result, this decision has implications beyond the immediate fate of the Labor senator.</p>
<h2>What is the case about?</h2>
<p>After ten months of controversy and numerous parliamentary disqualifications, resignations and byelections, every Australian knows that <a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html">section 44 of the Australian Constitution</a> disqualifies dual citizens from sitting in the Australian parliament. Gallagher was referred to the High Court after the Parliamentary Citizenship Register revealed <a href="https://theconversation.com/shadow-minister-katy-gallagher-was-british-when-she-nominated-for-2016-election-88594">she was a dual British citizen when she nominated for the 2016 federal election</a> She had gained citizenship by descent through her British-born father.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/if-high-court-decides-against-ministers-with-dual-citizenship-could-their-decisions-in-office-be-challenged-82688">If High Court decides against ministers with dual citizenship, could their decisions in office be challenged?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Unlike the previous cases, Gallagher admits she knew of her dual citizenship, but maintains she was still eligible because she had taken <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Senators_Interests/CitizenshipRegiste">“all necessary steps”</a> to renounce it.</p>
<p>Before nominating, Gallagher had submitted the prescribed renunciation form and the renunciation fee had been debited from her credit card. However, the UK Home Office subsequently requested further documents and did not formally register her renunciation until after the 2016 federal election. </p>
<h2>What will the court decide?</h2>
<p>The question before the High Court is whether somebody who has begun the renunciation process but is technically still a dual citizen at the time of nomination is eligible to be elected to parliament.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showbyHandle/1/8812">one of the earliest cases considering dual citizenship</a> in 1992, the High Court raised the possibility of an “all reasonable steps” exception to the dual citizenship disqualification. In the recent <a href="http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2017/HCA/45">“Citizenship Seven” case</a> the court confirmed there were limits to section 44. It found that if a foreign law made it impossible (or not reasonably possible) for a person to renounce their foreign citizenship, they would not be disqualified provided they had taken “all reasonable steps” within their power to renounce. </p>
<p>The present case turns on just how wide the “all reasonable steps” exception is held to be. Does section 44 just require a person to take all reasonable steps within their power to renounce, regardless of whether that renunciation is actually effective? Or is the exception limited only to circumstances where a foreign law makes renunciation practically impossible?</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/high-court-knocks-barnaby-joyce-out-in-dual-citizenship-case-as-byelection-looms-in-new-england-86470">As the prime minister has learnt</a>, it is never easy to predict with any certainty what the High Court will decide. If Senator Gallagher is to remain in parliament, she needs the court to take an expansive approach to the section 44 exception.</p>
<p>However, in both the <a href="http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2017/HCA/45">Citizenship Seven</a> and <a href="http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2017/HCA/52">Hollie Hughes cases</a>, the High Court has adopted a stricter interpretation of section 44, which would likely lead to disqualification if it approaches this case in the same way.</p>
<h2>What happens next?</h2>
<p>Obviously the High Court decision will have an immediate impact on Gallagher. If she is found to be ineligible, then a recount will likely mean that her replacement in the Senate is <a href="https://results.aec.gov.au/20499/Website/SenateCandidates-20499.htm#ACT">David Smith</a>. He was the second ALP Senate candidate for the ACT at the 2016 election.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-voters-just-want-citizenship-crisis-fixed-but-it-isnt-that-easy-87201">Grattan on Friday: Voters just want citizenship crisis fixed – but it isn't that easy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Importantly, this is a decision that has potential impacts on at least four other parliamentarians. The <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Members/Citizenship">citizenship declarations</a> of Susan Lamb, Justine Keay and Josh Wilson from the ALP, and Rebekah Sharkie from the Centre Alliance, all show they were technically British dual citizens at the time of nominating for the last federal election. </p>
<p>All four have made similar claims to Gallagher in terms of having taken “all reasonable steps” to renounce their dual citizenship. If Gallagher is held to be ineligible, the status of these members will undoubtedly also be in question.</p>
<p>Importantly, there are factual differences between all of these cases. This means much will turn on the precise reasoning contained within the High Court decision on Gallagher. If the court adopts the same strict approach as in recent section 44 cases, there would be a strong case for arguing that these other four parliamentarians should resign immediately.</p>
<p>Conversely, if the court finds Gallagher is eligible, much of the heat will be taken out of the dual citizenship controversy. It may even mean that we have seen the last of the dual citizenship referrals.</p>
<h2>Parliamentary committee report</h2>
<p>In all the speculation about the pending High Court decision, it should not be forgotten that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is expected soon to hand down its final report following its <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/Inquiry_into_matters_relating_to_Section_44_of_the_Constitution/Submissions">inquiry into section 44</a>.</p>
<p>The committee is <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/parliamentary-inquiry-to-recommend-referendum-allowing-mps-be-dual-citizens-20180504-p4zdc2.html">widely expected to recommend</a> that certain aspects of section 44 be removed through a constitutional referendum. Any such referendum could be held <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/act/referendum-to-change-section-44-should-be-held-at-election-law-expert-says-20180307-h0x5oe.html">at the same time as the next federal election</a>, although the prime minister has previously <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/malcolm-turnbull-rejects-referendum-but-flags-law-changes-to-ease-citizenship-chaos-20171106-gzg6ct">ruled this option out</a>.</p>
<p>While today’s High Court decision will have an immediate impact on the composition of the current parliament, the committee report is perhaps even more significant in terms of its potential effect on the broader conversation about section 44 and constitutional reform.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96214/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lorraine Finlay is affiliated with the Liberal Party of Australia, being the President of the Liberal Women's Council (WA).</span></em></p>Today’s High Court decision on whether Labor Senator Katy Gallagher is eligible to hold her seat will have significant implications for the whole parliament.Lorraine Finlay, Lecturer in Law, Murdoch UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/888112017-12-07T12:53:29Z2017-12-07T12:53:29ZGrattan on Friday: Bill Shorten faces a summer of uncertainty<p>It is not impossible that the Greens, who started the citizenship crisis with the resignation of then-senator Scott Ludlam, could end up winners from this fiasco that has cut a swathe through the parliament and threatens more havoc.</p>
<p>Wednesday’s reference to the High Court of Labor’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-blow-for-labor-as-david-feeney-hits-citizenship-hurdle-88661">David Feeney</a>, who holds the Melbourne seat of Batman, has certainly put a gleam in the Greens’ eyes.</p>
<p>Feeney hasn’t been able to <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/members/citizenship#cf">produce the documentation</a> to confirm the renunciation of British citizenship which he says he made a decade ago.</p>
<p>Unless the paperwork turns up or the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-high-court-sticks-to-the-letter-of-the-law-on-the-citizenship-seven-85324">High Court shows a leniency</a> that hasn’t been in its nature recently, a byelection in Batman would give the Greens a big chance of installing a second MP to keep Adam Bandt company in the House of Representatives.</p>
<p>Bill Shorten is understandably livid about Feeney, who before the last election overlooked <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-david-feeney-didnt-declare-23m-house-and-doesnt-know-if-its-negatively-geared-20160517-gowys9.html">declaring a A$2.3 million house</a>, only narrowly held off the Greens in his seat, and now, if he triggers a byelection, could reduce the opposition’s numbers. No wonder there’s speculation he’d be ditched as Labor’s candidate.</p>
<p>And Feeney’s rank carelessness, to describe it most charitably, comes on top of the recent new revelations about Labor senator Sam Dastyari’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/dastyari-demoted-again-but-government-demands-he-leave-parliament-88388">conduct</a>, showing how deeply the New South Wales numbers man has been in the thrall of the Chinese, in particular of a Chinese business benefactor.</p>
<p>It’s made for a very uncomfortable end to the parliamentary year for Shorten, who in previous months had most things breaking his way.</p>
<p>The citizenship crisis had taken a heavy toll on the government, with a minister and the Senate president gone from parliament, and the deputy prime minister and a Liberal backbencher forced to byelections. </p>
<p>To put things in perspective: yes, they all failed to do due diligence, but none of them compromised themselves in the way Dastyari did.</p>
<p>Now it’s Labor in the crosshairs. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/high-court-to-rule-on-two-labor-mps-but-partisan-row-protects-others-88712">situation of several of Shorten’s MPs</a> – leaving aside the egregious case of Feeney – is problematic, and Shorten’s boast about Labor vetting processes is being seen as hubristic.</p>
<p>It will be months before Labor will know what damage the citizenship crisis might do to it.</p>
<p>It will be more contained if the High Court, when it considers the case of ACT senator Katy Gallagher who was also <a href="https://theconversation.com/shadow-minister-katy-gallagher-was-british-when-she-nominated-for-2016-election-88594">referred this week</a>, accepts the ALP argument that an MP is constitutionally eligible provided they took reasonable steps to renounce foreign citizenship before nominating, even though confirmation didn’t come through by then.</p>
<p>If, however, the court were to find that the candidate needs the confirmation before they nominate, that could trigger byelections in three ALP seats (Braddon in Tasmania, Longman in Queensland and Fremantle in Western Australia) as well as in Mayo, held by crossbencher Rebekha Sharkie.</p>
<p>The Gallagher case will set a precedent for the other MPs with similar circumstances (although if Gallagher were knocked out her Senate position would be filled by a countback, not a byelection).</p>
<p>While byelection swings usually go against governments (Saturday’s result in New England notwithstanding), the thought of having to fight in the marginal seats of Longman and Braddon would make Labor nervous.</p>
<p>Even if it turned out that the only byelection were in Feeney’s seat, the strong prospect of a loss there would sour and distract Shorten’s new year.</p>
<p>Similarly, the extent of the fallout from the Dastyari affair is not yet clear.</p>
<p>There is no defence for Dastyari’s action in warning his Chinese benefactor that his phone was likely tapped, so they should talk outside. That was the core of the latest revelations, which came on top of earlier ones about Dastyari receiving financial largesse and toeing China’s policy line on the South China Sea.</p>
<p>But from Shorten’s point of view, dealing with the Dastyari issue is fraught.</p>
<p>All Shorten has done this time is strip him of what minor responsibilities he had.</p>
<p>It’s fanciful to think Shorten would ever contemplate trying to throw him out of the Labor Party, which would mean taking on the NSW right, and would reduce Labor’s Senate numbers.</p>
<p>But while Dastyari stays, Shorten is open to Coalition attacks and hostage to anything further that may come out – just when the government is cracking down on attempts by foreign interests to influence Australian politics. Dastyari might face an inquiry by the Senate privileges committee.</p>
<p>It would be a gift for Shorten if Dastyari were to decide rehabilitation is too long a road and he should look for other career opportunities.</p>
<p>The problems that Shorten currently faces highlight certain weaknesses that his critics identify in his political approach.</p>
<p>The citizenship issue shows the way he plays the tactical game relentlessly, with insufficient appreciation of how things can come back to bite you.</p>
<p>Of course Labor would make the most of the government’s embarrassment over its dual citizens, but Shorten left himself little wriggle room when he insisted for so long Labor was fireproofed, despite warning signs it mightn’t be.</p>
<p>When its vulnerability was exposed this week, Shorten doubled down. After all MPs’ declarations became public, Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus produced a list of Coalition members who Labor said hadn’t supplied enough evidence that they were not dual citizens. One was Josh Frydenberg, whose mother had been fleeing persecution. Frydenberg’s inclusion in the Dreyfus list brought rebukes from two Labor MPs.</p>
<p>This was followed by Labor’s unsuccessful attempt to refer four Liberals (not including Frydenberg) to the High Court, as well as four of its own and Sharkie.</p>
<p>The move on the Liberals looked like seeking cover, especially when one of them, Nola Marino, produced a letter from Italian authorities saying she did not have Italian citizenship.</p>
<p>Surely it is adequate to rely on a country’s word that someone is not a citizen? Certainly Labor’s deputy leader Tanya Plibersek is using a letter from Slovenian authorities.</p>
<p>The Dastyari affair raises questions about how far Shorten is willing to go for those who are politically important to him.</p>
<p>Dastyari had to leave the front bench after the initial revelations about his Chinese links.</p>
<p>But within months he was given a partial leg up, becoming deputy opposition whip in the Senate. This seemed undue haste, and it raises concerns about Shorten appearing beholden to his allies. We see another example in his refusal to take a tougher line towards the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union.</p>
<p>Despite the setbacks, Shorten is still very <a href="https://theconversation.com/coalition-behind-in-two-new-polls-as-triumphant-joyce-heads-back-to-canberra-88542">well-placed</a>, compared with Turnbull, as the end of 2017 approaches, although the December 16 Bennelong byelection will play into this balance.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, it is Shorten, rather than Turnbull, who appears to face the bigger uncertainties in the early part of 2018.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/xac9s-7e77c6?from=site&skin=1&share=1&fonts=Helvetica&auto=0&download=0" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88811/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It will be months before Labor will know what damage the citizenship crisis might do to it.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/885652017-12-06T02:13:15Z2017-12-06T02:13:15ZNear enough may not be good enough as parliament’s dual citizenship crisis deepens<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197869/original/file-20171205-22982-6wy1dh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Labor senator Katy Gallagher has been referred to the High Court over her possible dual citizenship status.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Over the past five months, a growing of numbers MPs elected at the 2016 federal election have either been disqualified or resigned from parliament because of dual citizenship issues. </p>
<p>This extraordinary chain of events started back in July with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/greens-resignations-show-a-need-to-change-dual-citizenship-requirements-81181">resignation of Greens senator Scott Ludlam</a>. It looks set to continue into 2018, after the publication of <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Members/Citizenship">citizenship registries</a> revealed several more MPs have serious dual citizenship questions <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-blow-for-labor-as-david-feeney-hits-citizenship-hurdle-88661">to answer</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-blow-for-labor-as-david-feeney-hits-citizenship-hurdle-88661">New blow for Labor as David Feeney hits citizenship hurdle</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<p>Among those likely to be referred to the High Court are several senators and MPs whose citizenship declarations show they were technically still dual citizens when nominations closed before the 2016 federal election, but who claim they had personally taken all reasonable steps to renounce their dual citizenship before that date. </p>
<p>This group includes Labor’s Katy Gallagher (who has been <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-06/katy-gallagher-asks-high-court-to-assess-eligibility/9230416">referred to the High Court</a> already), Justine Keay, Susan Lamb and Josh Wilson, and the Nick Xenophon Team’s Rebekha Sharkie.</p>
<h2>All reasonable steps?</h2>
<p>Several of these MPs have received legal advice suggesting they will not be disqualified under <a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html">Section 44 of the Constitution</a> because they had taken all reasonable steps to renounce their dual citizenship before nominating as an election candidate. </p>
<p>For example, all appear to have completed their renunciation paperwork and paid the required fee before nominating, but were waiting on the British Home Office to register the renunciation. They did not receive formal confirmation of their renunciation until after the election. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61">Under British law</a>, citizenship does not cease until the secretary of state actually registers the declaration of renunciation.</p>
<p>In order for someone personally taking “all reasonable steps” to be eligible – in circumstances where that renunciation has not actually been accepted – the High Court would need to take a flexible view of Section 44’s wording. </p>
<p>The court has never been asked to directly consider this precise set of circumstances before, so nobody can be entirely sure what it would find. But given the strict reading of Section 44 adopted in recent cases, it would not be surprising if these five MPs were all found to be disqualified. </p>
<p>In the <a href="http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2017/HCA/45">case of the “Citizenship Seven”</a>, the court unanimously found that the dual citizenship provision is “cast in peremptory terms”. This means it sets out a definite obligation in clear and certain words.</p>
<p>While the court found there would be cases where someone who had taken “all reasonable steps” to renounce dual citizenship would not be disqualified, this was not a test of general application. Rather, it was a specific exception that applied where the law of a foreign country prevented someone from renouncing their foreign citizenship, or made it unreasonably difficult for them to do so. </p>
<p>This was based on the constitutional imperative that an Australian citizen should not:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… be irremediably prevented by foreign law from participation in representative government.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-high-court-sticks-to-the-letter-of-the-law-on-the-citizenship-seven-85324">The High Court sticks to the letter of the law on the ‘citizenship seven’</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<p>None of the five MPs mentioned above were “irremediably prevented” from renouncing. Instead, they had failed to do so in enough time to have the renunciation registered before the required date. So, it is difficult to see the court accepting that the British renunciation procedures were so unreasonable that they amounted to someone being “irremediably prevented”. </p>
<p>Taking this approach, the only fact that will matter is that these MPs were all still actually dual citizens at the time of nomination. On this basis, they would all be disqualified.</p>
<p>To escape disqualification, they will need the court to extend the “all reasonable steps” exception to every case of dual citizenship. It is open to the court to do this, but the recent decisions in relation to both the <a href="http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2017/HCA/45">Citizenship Seven</a> and <a href="http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCATrans/2017/234.html">Hollie Hughes</a> suggest a stricter approach.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/high-court-strikes-again-knocking-out-hollie-hughes-as-replacement-senator-87526">High Court strikes again – knocking out Hollie Hughes as replacement senator</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<p>This means it is entirely possible that Gallagher, Keay, Lamb, Wilson and Sharkie will all be declared ineligible. At the very least, there is a real question to be answered about their eligibility. </p>
<p>That it has taken more than five months and a compulsory declaration procedure for this to come to light reflects extremely badly on these MPs.</p>
<h2>Previous ineligibility</h2>
<p>The citizenship registers have also revealed that there are several MPs who were eligible at the time of the 2016 federal election but who appear to have had dual citizenship issues for at least part of a previous parliamentary term. This includes Greens senator Nick McKim, Labor senators Alex Gallacher, Louise Pratt and Lisa Singh, and Liberal senator Dean Smith. </p>
<p>Since they relate only to previous parliamentary terms, none of these cases will be referred to the High Court. However, these MPs’ conduct should not escape criticism.</p>
<p>Again, that it has taken more than five months and a compulsory declaration procedure for these cases to come to light is highly disappointing. </p>
<p>The real issue here isn’t one of dual citizenship, but rather the honesty and integrity of our MPs. The dual citizenship issue is likely to be fixed in the future through greater candidate awareness and political parties undertaking stricter vetting processes. The loss of trust between the Australian people and their MPs is much harder to fix.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88565/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lorraine Finlay is affiliated with the Liberal Party of Australia, being a member of the WA Division.</span></em></p>That it has taken more than five months and a compulsory declaration procedure for some MPs’ dual citizenship issues to come to light reflects extremely badly on them.Lorraine Finlay, Lecturer in Law, Murdoch UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/834672017-09-04T11:58:33Z2017-09-04T11:58:33ZShorten shakes off citizenship pursuers as Labor pursues Joyce<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184520/original/file-20170904-17907-f4n0ym.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bill Shorten tabled a copy of his UK citizenship renunciation documents on Monday. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>While it would have been much easier for the government if Barnaby Joyce had stood aside from cabinet while the High Court determined his parliamentary eligibility, the Nationals leader was too big a fish for that to happen.</p>
<p>But the political price of his retention is substantial, as Monday made clear.</p>
<p>Labor started the parliamentary week with a suite of questions about the citizenship imbroglio, including interrogating Malcolm Turnbull about the possible illegality of the ministerial decisions Joyce and his deputy, senator Fiona Nash, are now making, if the court doesn’t go as Malcolm Turnbull so confidently predicts.</p>
<p>Let’s be clear. This wasn’t Labor rendering the parliament chaotic, as some earlier hype had anticipated. Rather, it was a proper use of Question Time to pursue detail the government would rather avoid, and highlight a potential problem.</p>
<p>Turnbull argued Labor was playing politics “at a time when we face the gravest threat to peace on the Korean Peninsula, at a time at home when we
have Australian families and businesses bearing the brunt of higher and higher electricity prices”. Well, that’s true, but the matters being raised are legitimate.</p>
<p>For instance, constitutional experts warn that if the High Court ruled against the ministers, the decisions they made in this period could be legally problematic.</p>
<p>A person can be a minister without being a parliamentarian for three months under the Constitution. But if the High Court declared Joyce and Nash ineligible and the three months dated from the election, the grace period would not protect these decisions.</p>
<p>For the government, the worst of the situation is that the pressure on Joyce is a well to which Labor can keep returning, especially at the moment. When Turnbull goes to the Pacific Islands Forum late this week, Joyce briefly becomes acting prime minister.</p>
<p>To keep the heat on Joyce, Bill Shorten decided to accept the government’s challenge and finally produce the evidence that he properly renounced his British citizenship before entering parliament.</p>
<p>Like Joyce and Nash he had dual citizenship by descent – but, unlike them, he was aware of it and dealt with it.</p>
<p>Shorten had repeatedly resisted producing the documentation. It had been thought that, while he was certainly OK, he didn’t want to expose any of his colleagues whose affairs mightn’t be in order, despite the ALP’s rigorous checking process.</p>
<p>On Monday morning Tony Abbott flourished evidence of renouncing his own British citizenship and said Shorten should do the same. “Show your letter or shut up about Barnaby Joyce,” Abbott said. Turnbull pressed the point in Question Time.</p>
<p>Abbott would have been pretty happy that his action was followed so soon by a result.</p>
<p>By tabling his documentation, Shorten in theory may have made it harder for others to resist demands for paperwork. But one suspects the government has lost the will for this chase.</p>
<p>Recently the position of Labor’s ACT senator Katy Gallagher, whose mother was born in Ecuador of British citizens who were in that country temporarily, has come under some question. In a statement to the Senate on Monday, Gallagher quoted two legal opinions supporting her eligibility. That looks to be that.</p>
<p>Most immediately, Shorten has stopped the government being able to divert attention from the Joyce situation onto the furphy about him.</p>
<p>Having erected the barricades around Joyce and Nash, the government will face continuing attacks – until things get better when the ministers receive the all clear, or very much worse if the decisions are adverse.</p>
<p>The government’s only counter is its argument that Labor is concentrating on political point-scoring when the nation’s sights should be higher, and the ALP does have to take some care on that front.</p>
<p>As the citizenship issue continued to gnaw at the government, the Coalition trailed in the 19th consecutive <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/newspoll-the-coalition-regains-ground-with-voters/news-story/9d063e090849d7f5ac54e704e4b61437">Newspoll</a>. Labor’s two-party lead has narrowed from 54-46% to 53-47% in a fortnight, and the Coalition’s primary vote was up two points to 37%, but in voting terms this was another status quo poll.</p>
<p>From the government’s perspective, the encouraging change has been Turnbull widening his lead as better prime minister from ten points to 17 points.</p>
<p>Last week Turnbull was going out of his way to show he was focusing on power prices, so preoccupying for many voters. There was the helicopter ride to the Snowy and the summoning of electricity chiefs to Canberra again to tell them to give consumers better information about the best deals to lower their bills.</p>
<p>But these are easy gestures, as the battle within the government looms over a clean energy target – the seminal policy decision between now and the end of the year.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/qi46m-71c69c?from=site&skin=1&share=1&fonts=Helvetica&auto=0&download=0" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/83467/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
While it would have been much easier for the government if Barnaby Joyce had stood aside from cabinet while the High Court determined his parliamentary eligibility, the Nationals leader was too big a fish…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/502142015-11-04T07:29:47Z2015-11-04T07:29:47ZPolitics podcast: Katy Gallagher on transitioning from chief minister to senator<p>Former ACT chief minister Katy Gallagher, now a federal Labor senator with new responsibilities in the shadow ministry, admits she has found the jump into the bigger political pool challenging. She has also had to do a pivot in her views on increasing the GST. Here she also talks about mental health, federal-state relations and Labor’s face-off with Malcolm Turnbull.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50214/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Former ACT chief minister now senator Katy Gallagher admits she has found the jump into the bigger political pool challenging.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.