End of story for Katy Gallagher’s citizenship dramas? Not a chance

Senator Katy Gallagher (left) with Penny Wong in the Senate chamber. Photo: Gary Ramage

COMMENT

Only a fortnight ago Labor senator Katy Gallagher, manager of opposition business in the Senate, was very much in Goody-two-shoes character.

Senator Fiona Nash, a government frontbencher, had known for a number of days that she held dual citizenship, yet she did not inform Parliament until just before the Senate adjourned for a two-week break.

“This is simply not good enough,” snapped Gallagher.

But Gallagher failed to mention that she herself may be in breach of section 44 of the Constitution, which could see her, along with an ever growing list of federal parliamentarians, being given the bum’s rush from her plush chambers. An investigation by The Daily Telegraph revealed Monday that Gallagher’s mother was born in Ecuador. Article 7 of that country’s constitution provides that a person “born abroad of a mother or father born in Ecuador and their descendants up to the third degree of consanguinity is Ecuadorean by birth.”

“In the event Gallagher is deemed ineligible, Wong’s standing in the party will be severely damaged.”

Labor has rejected any such application to Gallagher, claiming her mother’s acquiring Australian citizenship forfeited her Ecuadorean nationality, assuming she ever held it in the first place. Good luck with that. Article 6 of the country’s constitution provides that “Ecuadorean nationality is obtained by birth or naturalisation and shall not be forfeited … by acquiring another nationality.”

Gallagher too rejects any suggestion of dual citizenship, saying: “The 2008 Constitution was not in effect when my mother was born in 1943.” That is an argument worthy of a bush lawyer. Neither Articles 6 nor 7 expressly precludes retrospectivity, in which case there is a strong argument that both should be interpreted widely.

Does Gallagher seriously maintain that the country’s constitutional citizenship clauses apply only to people born after 2008? If she is correct, there must be a lot of stateless people in Ecuador, where the median age is 27.4 years.

What Gallagher cannot deny is that Ecuador’s current constitution was in effect when she was appointed to the Senate in 2015, in which case the obligation was upon her either to refute any suggestion of Ecuadorean citizenship or take steps to renounce it. She did neither. Instead she abrogated responsibility.

“As part of the ALP vetting process,” said Gallagher this week, “the circumstances of my mother’s birth and citizenship were investigated.

“As a result of these investigations it was determined that I had not obtained Ecuadorean citizenship by descent from my mother.”

Senator Katy Gallagher speaks to the media earlier this year. Photo: AAP

This is simply not good enough. As to what these investigations entailed we are not privy, but it appears that writing to the Ecuadorean authorities to seek a definitive answer was not part of them. Her credibility is further compromised by her coyness in this affair about her mother’s birthplace. If Gallagher is truly confident that she does not hold dual citizenship, why did she not disclose this earlier as a matter of good faith, especially when it was so topical and in the public interest?

As for the ALP vetting process, it appears farcical as to the section 44 aspect. Gallagher conceded she did not seek legal advice about her status. To illustrate the complexity and ambiguity of this issue, keep in mind that at the time of her mother’s birth (1943), Ecuador’s 1929 constitution was in effect. Since then the country has enacted a plethora of new constitutions — 1945, 1946, 1967, 1979 and 2008. To add to this legal conundrum, the 1945 constitution was reinstated in 1972, suspended in 1974, and again reinstated in 1976. But there is no need for legal advice about Gallagher’s eligibility because some nameless ALP official said it was all good, right?

Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Penny Wong. Photo: AAP

“Katy Gallagher is not now and never has been an Ecuadorean citizen. End of story,” declared Labor Senate leader Penny Wong in an interview this week with ABC Radio. If you resort to a hollow cliche to reinforce an assertion as Wong did, it is highly likely your argument had little or no merit in the first place. The reasons for Wong’s defensiveness extend beyond party loyalty: she was the one who first approached Gallagher to ask if she would nominate for the Senate. In the event Gallagher is deemed ineligible, Wong’s standing in the party will be severely damaged.

Mind you, Wong does not stand alone in that respect.

“We have a strict vetting process,” said Opposition Leader Bill Shorten last week, well before the Gallagher scoop. “There is no cloud over any of our people,” he added. Apart from a cloud the size of La Niña, that is. What does it say of Shorten and Wong’s credibility when the nation’s top constitutional scholars say that Gallagher should be referred to the High Court?

At the very least, Shorten was not properly briefed before speaking, thus confirming a longstanding belief that he will mindlessly parrot the party’s official line.

However, Labor’s refusal to provide documents confirming its members’ renunciation of dual citizenship — including Shorten’s — suggest outright duplicity. You heard correctly: the alternative Prime Minister’s self-awareness is such that he asks people to put blind faith in politicians’ trustworthiness. Whatever the case, Labor has shown contempt for the public’s right to be assured that its representatives comply with the Constitution. Ditto the government, which is derelict in refusing to initiate an audit.

“I think you have to take each individual on face value and if she [Gallagher] says that she’s certain she’s not an Ecuadorean citizen we take her on face value,” said Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar on Monday. Is the government that enfeebled that it meekly accepts a ‘scout’s honour’ defence, despite the evidence to the contrary? Forgive me, but is that surname spelled ‘Sukkar’ or ‘Sucker’? Talk about pusillanimous. Next time Shorten is under fire for the Australian Workers’ Union having taken secret payments while he was national and state secretary, will Sukkar take it on face value that he was acting in good faith?

Gallagher — who was welcomed as a star recruit — may well turn out to be an overrated liability. Like many of her ilk, she was a union organiser before entering politics. Prior to her Senate appointment, she was chief minister in the ACT Government, effectively a glorified town council. “As Treasurer I helped steer the ACT through the global financial crisis,” she claimed. We are talking about the world’s most insulated and artificial economy here, given federal government spending — particularly with the proliferation of Canberra-based public servants — props it up. With such boastful claims Gallagher is ideally suited to carry on the legacy of the ‘World’s Best Finance Minister’, Wayne (“The four years of surplus I announce tonight”) Swan, whose ability is such that he sits on the backbench.

If Gallagher does fall foul of section 44, she can take comfort in the fact that she was emulating Australia’s first Labor PM, Chris Watson, who was born in South America and in all likelihood held his seat unlawfully. Who knows, this could see Australia and Ecuador grow closer. As it is that country probably knows little about ours, their only interest in us being whether their London embassy can transform Julian Assange into the world’s first artificially-created albino.

In the meantime, there is a simple way of resolving this issue without going to the High Court. If Gallagher is so confident that she is not a dual citizen, she only has to seek written clarification from the Ecuadorean authorities, and undertake to provide this — whatever the answer — to the Australian public.

To quote from Gallagher’s maiden speech to the Senate: “I learnt that when speaking with my community, honesty was definitely the best policy and that not having the answer and saying so was better than trying to fudge it.” You were saying, senator?