A HIGH Court challenge to the election of Liberal senator Eric Abetz is set to be dropped by wealthy northern Tasmanian antiques dealer John Hawkins.
Counsel for Mr Hawkins, John Sackar QC, told the court yesterday he would seek leave to withdraw the petition, after his client received a document showing Senator Abetz had renounced his German citizenship.
The renunciation meant Senator Abetz was eligible for election in 2010 and thus could not be challenged in the High Court.
But an unrepentant Mr Hawkins said yesterday Senator Abetz’s renunciation was dated March 9, 2010.
He said it meant Senator Abetz had been ineligible, because of his dual citizenship, during the 16 years of his political career until that date.
“You cannot renounce what you haven’t got, so it means that Senator Abetz was a dual citizen and thus ineligible from 1994 to 2010,” he said.
“If he was a proper chap he would resign.”
The Australian Constitution prevents anyone who is a citizen of a foreign country, which includes holding dual citizenship, from being elected to, or sitting in the Australian Parliament.
Mr Hawkins said the election of Senator Abetz in 1994, 1998 and 2004 could only have been challenged in a 40-day window after each election.
His election in the 2010 election cannot be challenged because he was not a dual citizen at the date of the nomination for the August 21 election.
Senator Abetz said he had instructed his legal representatives to seek an order for costs.
“The likely discontinuance of the High Court petition against my re-election to the Senate is welcome,” he said.
“Under the rules of the High Court, the petitioner needs to advertise his intention to discontinue the proceedings brought against me.
“This will have to occur by the 30th of October.”
The matter has been set down before the High Court for November 15.
…
Mr Hawkins said the challenge had been money well spent and he had been vindicated because Senatior Abetz had been a dual citizen until March.
…
He also said he had a copy of a 1993 letter he wrote to the German Embassy which proved that he had taken further steps to ensure his German citzenship had been completely relinquished.
…
Senator Abetz told the Mercury he would provide a carbon copy of the 1993 letter, but it was not provided.
John Hawkins told Tasmanian Times …
I am reserving my comments until The Death*
*A fox hunting term …
The history of the John Hawkins’ challenge, on Tasmanian Times: HERE
john hayward
October 22, 2010 at 19:22
Even if the High Court had upheld the spirit of the prohibition on dual citizen MPs, Eric would still be quite comfortable from his winnings in the miraculous Channel Highway re-zoning of his property.
John Hayward
Michael and Bonni Hall
October 22, 2010 at 21:38
O.K. So, he was ‘legal’ for the 2010 election but not the previous ones at which he was elected. Is this ethical? Personally, we think not.Why did he not renounce his citizenship earlier?
salamander
October 22, 2010 at 22:04
Thought it sounded too easy! But wouldn’t it have been loverly to rid us of this “representative”.
Pete Bennett
October 23, 2010 at 09:48
Sad situation here where Abetz is obviously not a worthy person to defend however I have to say from reading all the material that there is nothing which points to him having made any attempt to exploit remaining ambiguity in relation to his German citizenship status, i.e. no mention of trips back to the old country in which Abetz makes use of some vestige of German citizenship. So seems to have been just a bit of a grey area as to whether the German Embassy possibly had neglected to respond to Abetz’s 1993 letter possibly resulting in some form of German citizenship continuing on until early 2010 when Abetz formally renounced any claim to German citizenship.
William Boeder
October 23, 2010 at 10:58
From most accounts of this Senator Eric Abetz character, he does not offer any true values nor benefits to our State nor its people?
Seems he is nought but another cunning predator upon the Political scene, doing his best to support all the negative corporate influences that have become the enemy of human-kind?
He is also a supporter of all the extreme tax exploiting religious minorities.
Tis a shame upon all that his presence is due to a lack of sound probity investigation, that this fellow managed to inveigle his way into office in spite of his supposed then ineligibility to have entered politics?
Crumbs
October 23, 2010 at 13:19
Highway land deal needs more investigation. Something funny there. Sadly there are no journos in Tasmania brave enough to risk their future employment to follow this up.
Karl Stevens
October 23, 2010 at 16:58
“Highway land deal’ eh? The Launceston Exterminator is sending their senior lingerie reporter over to carry-out a full investigation.
Wining Pom
October 23, 2010 at 22:32
Can’t take back his salary from the previous years but what about his superannuation?
My daughter was fined $500 because she didn’t realise the time limit of registering a car in another state. Just an oversight, but no let off for her.
William Boeder
October 24, 2010 at 02:25
In regard to this pious grinning Senator Eric Abetz person, how is it that we have in our midst all these Liberal Party politicians, espousing how much better equipped they are to act as our Leaders in the State government of Tasmania?
Then too, the Liberal Party as our leaders in our Federal government, when they are all as one with this most unsavory suspicious character?
On the basis of how little effective be our present State Labor government, would arguably be so detestably abhorrent, to imagine an Australian State and or Federal government, to be filled with those whom are well acquainted with, or whom to this Senator– they call him their friend and colleague?
Enough has been written of this posturing humbug for each and all of the citizens in Tasmania to look least upon this Abetz, as a genuine article or indeed, a trustworthy minister whom might offer a listening ear or even some form of solace to the people?
Red Bob
October 24, 2010 at 14:17
If there is to be a modicum of fairness and honesty on this site then let us accept several points about this case, or rather what we know of it at this point in time.
1. Assuming Abetz did hold dual citizenship at a relevant time (that being, when he contested an election), there is no evidence that he derived any benefit from this.
2. Following on from point one, no one is claiming there was any benefit to him.
3. The claim, therefore, that Eric Abetz was ineligible to contest an election (past or more recent) is based on a legal technicality only, and not some nefarious doings.
4. Abetz has maintained that he took steps to renounce his German citizenship in that he sent a letter to this effect to the German embassy.
5. Abetz sent a letter to this same effect in March of this year.
6. There is no evidence that allows us to draw the conclusion that Abetz’s action in sending the more recent letter proves that he did not in fact send the earlier one.
7. Abetz knew about the citizenship claims and it is just as possible that he lost his copy of the earlier letter and/or was simply being careful by writing another.
8. It is irrelevant to the claims of his citizenship status what anyone thinks of Eric Abetz or his politics.
William Boeder
October 24, 2010 at 20:21
#10. Red Bob, in reply to your supportive views of this man.
In all honesty, this Senator’s political actions, in my view taken against the wishes of the people, have become quite noteworthy.
1. The false claims that with all the MIS investment began soon leading into activity supporting the de-forestation of much of Tasmania’s Public Forests, via conversion to plantations, courtesy of the good old Aussie taxpayer, does him no favors.
2. The enormous grants that were presented to Gunns Ltd, to aid them to wood-chip so much of the afore-said forests was for the pure benefit of Gunns Ltd, nobody else really.
3. As a result of the somehow rapidly prospering entity of Gunns Ltd, we see how certain directors and others of this company, held for themselves a very powerful influence upon this State government, (might I say a very destructive greed orientated influence?)
4. The Forestry Industry that “under this Liberal Forestry Minister,” was much trumpeted to soon became a pumped-up sure-fire winner for Gunns Ltd, also the vapid claims in its being of a supposedly long-term highly sustainable industry.
5. There could never be whatever this Senator claimed to be, of such super economic benefits to all in this State, via the media-grabbing posturing and huckstering suggestions by this Senator, particularly in the number of times their industry has been given massive injections of taxpayer funds.
That there were a “small number of individuals” enjoying quite handsome returns for themselves and share-holders, at the behest of “once again” the little Aussie taxpayer, is now largely indisputable?
6. I had the unfortunate occasion to hear the vilifying, denigrating, disparaging and dishonourable tirade that this Senator hurled upon a supposed colleague of his, one Senator Bob Brown, on ABC radio.
There was no justification whatsoever for this highly disrespectful barrage against arguably, Australia’s most renowned Senator.
7. This same Senator Eric Abetz was largely responsible for the voting against, of a major attempt toward launching the full-on investigation, (as was so responsibly called for,) into some of the extreme pseudo-religious money-grabbing purposes of these wild-cat holier than thou institutions, then offering his smile of approval to the method of allowing them access to various Federal funding grants?
8. These are only some of the well known actions of this supposed “honourable Senator”
Much of what I have said here is already on public record.
That I have every reason to comment in the nature as I have so done, is not intended in any way to offer any mitigating considerations to what has occurred through the bold courtesy of this same person at varying stages during his political office?
William Boeder.
Des Hanlon
October 25, 2010 at 12:41
Hawkins … ‘until The Death’.
I can hear the hunting horns calling. But is it a mort? We now have a live fox and the hounds are baying.
The mort is a well known hunting cry — A less well-known cry was the evocative “whoo-whoop”, articulated at the death of the fox as it was torn and consumed by the hounds.
A fuller description of fox hunting can be found here http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/fox-hunting-and-the-ban/features/customs-of-hunting-finished
But the following extract provides the context for in Until The Death
“In medieval times, a mournful call on the hunting horn, known as the “mort” (meaning “death”), was sounded at this point. The cry of “whoo-whoop” was perhaps an imitation of this, and later passed into colloquial usage among hunting folk to refer to anything that was at an end, or dead on its feet.
Division of the spoils
If a fox was eventually caught by the hounds, it was generally taken from them by the leading huntsman to be dismembered. Various parts of its anatomy were prized as trophies by members of the hunt. The “brush” (as its tail is known) was particularly esteemed, and used to be presented to the leading rider in the field. However, the urge to be first meant that hunters would often gallop recklessly to the scene of the kill, causing a potential pile-up of horses, so by the early 19th century, the tradition of awarding the brush to the first rider was abandoned.
Anybody who didn’t get the brush might be privileged with one of the other parts to be distributed. The “mask” (head) might make a dramatic piece of taxidermy to put on your shelf or wall, as a token of your first kill, while one of the “pads” (feet) made an interesting twist on the tradition of carrying a rabbit’s foot as a lucky charm.
What remained of the fox’s carcass after the hunt-master’s swift butchery of it would then be tossed to the hounds.
First blood
Perhaps no hunting custom aroused greater distaste among the non-practitioner than that of blooding. This was a celebration of a novice’s (usually a child’s) first successful hunt by daubing the still-warm blood of the ripped animal on his or her face. In recognition that people found this custom a little too earthy to be charming, blooding fell into some disrepute during the 19th century. It was never wholly abandoned, however, and was almost certainly still being practised right up until the hunting prohibition came into effect.
An American historian of English fox-hunting, David C Itzkowitz, writing in 1977, met children who had been blooded at a hunt in Lincolnshire.”