Anonymous asked: Your post on the Drum assured us Wyatt Roys election to the house of reps was constitutional, having found my own copy it would appear to be fairly black and white on the issue with a lay reading of section 34 (i) a MHR has to be 21. So why is it still constitutional valid?
Section 34 of the Constitution provides:
Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the qualifications of a member of the House of Representatives shall be as follows:
(i) he must be of the full age of twenty‑one years, and must be an elector entitled to vote at the election of members of the House of Representatives, or a person qualified to become such elector, and must have been for three years at the least a resident within the limits of the Commonwealth as existing at the time when he is chosen;
(ii) he must be a subject of the Queen, either natural‑born or for at least five years naturalized under a law of the United Kingdom, or of a Colony which has become or becomes a State, or of the Commonwealth, or of a State.
The key phrase is “Until the Parliament otherwise provides” because that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the power to legislative the qualifications of members. Indeed, the Commonwealth Parliament has established the qualifications for members in section 163 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918:
(1) A person who:
(a) has reached the age of 18 years;
(b) is an Australian citizen; and
(c) is either:
(i) an elector entitled to vote at a House of Representatives election; or
(ii) a person qualified to become such an elector;
is qualified to be elected as a Senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
(2) A person is not entitled to be nominated for election as a Senator or a member of the House of Representatives unless the person is qualified under subsection (1).
-
samclifford said:
This has got to be one of the most annoying red herrings ever. “Until the parliament provides”. Jeez, people, I wonder what that could mean?
-
freedomtodither posted this