There’s been a lot of press around Jim Saleam, founder of white nationalist group National Action,which featured several high profile far right figures, running in the Longman byelection on July 28. But should his criminal history have disqualified him from running at all?
Most of the coverage of Saleam so far centeres around the issue of preferences — One Nation have put him ahead of Labor and the Queensland Council of Unions have put election material recommending he be put ahead of the LNP.
Saleam joined the nationalist group Australia First after being jailed for property offences, fraud and planning the attempted murder of anti-Apartheid activist and African National Congress diplomat Eddie Funde.
Saleam spent three years in prison for the gun crime. Saleam’s history of violence and penchant for donning Nazi uniforms has been covered — what hasn’t come up is how on earth he is eligible to run for office.
Does spending time in prison disqualify Saleam from running?
Last year saw a remarkable culling of parliament due to citizenship issues. Indeed, the whole reason we’re being subjected to the spectacle in Longman and elsewhere is that Labor’s Susan Lamb is in the latest batch to stand down over her dual citizenship.
Saleam, again, let’s be clear, spent three years in prison for suborning a shotgun attack on the home of an anti-Apartheid campaigner. Rod Culleton, meanwhile, was partly knocked off on account of some dodginess with a rented car. Culleton’s conviction for larceny — a charge that carries a sentence of more than a year — ended up being irrelevant, given his bankruptcy.
Section 44(ii) of the Constitution disqualifies from parliament anyone “attainted by treason”, or anyone who been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for a crime that carries a sentence of 12 months or more in prison.
The key phrase there is “under sentence”, Australia’s University of Sydney professor and constitutional lawyer Anne Twomey told Crikey.
“If you have served your time you are eligible again to stand,” she said. “Unless the conviction was for treason.”
Evan Ekin-Smyth, Assistant Director of Media at Australian Electoral Commission told Crikey it wasn’t the role of the AEC to vet candidates.
“The AEC does not administer the constitution. It is up to individual candidates to declare that they are eligible under Section 44 of the constitution at the time of nomination. It is then up to electors to vote based on the information available to them,” he said.
Nor, he said, was it up to the AEC to make changes in this area:
“The constitution, of course, can only be changed by the Australian people through a referendum and there has been different commentary from both major parties about the potential to hold one and its potential to succeed. The AEC administers federal elections … This is a matter for parliament.”
The main question would seem to be why didn’t Pauline accept him as a PHON candidate….he seems well qualified.
Unlike the US where they seem to think a felon should become a voteless second class citizen for life even after they have paid their debt to society, in Australia citizens are not disenfranchised although they have to be citizens only of Australia to sit in Parliament. The candidate in question should have his background publicised, then the voters can decide whether he should represent them.
Completely with you on this one Rais. Charlie using loaded language like “what hasn’t come up is how on earth he is eligible to run for office” is a bit on the nose when you consider the alternatives.
Me, three. Let him stand, or run, as long as his background is known.
Though that might actually be a plus in some quarters.
Big difference between “not allowed to vote” & “not allowed to sit in parliament”. Someone who did time for fraud & conspiracy to commit murder really should be ineligible to stand for office. After all, we disallow bankrupts, & I consider the former far worse.
We disallow undischarged bankrupt, Marcus. We also disallow people who are charged with serious crime until the court case is over. In a country where convicts and former convicts have played an important part we shouldn’t deny former convicts who have served their time the right to present themselves as candidates although in some cases the voters might be unlikely to elect them. Senator Hinch is an ex-convict though admittedly not guilty of any violence. I disagree with some of his views but Australia would be poorer for not having allowed him to be a candidate.
Surely we draw the line at those who conspire to commit murder…..or at least we should? Next thing we know we’ll be allowing rapists, drug dealers, spousal abusers……
Who is “we”, Marcus? Never heard of a wrongful conviction? Never heard of a beat-up charge to get rid of a political opponent?
The thing about governments is, they control (to an extent, governed by institutions, which are faring so well nowadays right?) the police and the prosecutors. If you give a government sole control over who can run for parliament, what do you think might start happening to their political opponents?
There’s all sorts of good reasons to not allow people before the courts or actually in prison to run. But to prevent them from running after they’ve served their time?
Oh dear, KFix, is that really the best excuse you can make for letting fascist neo-Nazis, who advocate murder of people based on their race, into our parliament?
Tolerance of the intolerant only ensures that we will end up ruled by utterly intolerant people.
I did not make an “excuse” for “letting fascist neo-Nazis … into our parliament”.
I made an “argument” for “letting voters decide who should be elected to parliament with minimal prescriptive intervention from the executive government”.
You might like to look at the history of many of the authoritarian (perhaps even “facist”) regimes going around today, and further back in history, to see what use an oppressive government can make of tight eligibility rules for elected office.
So its OK to have, in our parliament, people who have conspired to commit murder, but someone who stole a car is irredeemable?!?!
This is yet more evidence why the whole part of the constitution relating to eligibility to sit in parliament needs a major rewrite.
I think this article is criminal clickbait.
It’s Queensland, so this nutter is on the bell curve of normality.
He stands and if enough fellow racists contrarians want him, he wins…If not he scuttles back to whichever rock he normally lives under.