My child has been diagnosed with ADHD. How do I make a decision about medication and what are the side effects?

Shutterstock

Alison Poulton, University of SydneyIf your child has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), you might be wondering: what now? And how do I know if medication is warranted?

The answer will depend on circumstances and will change over time. It’s quite OK to leave medication as a last resort — but it can be a very useful last resort.

Here are some questions I typically work through with a parent and child negotiating this issue.

---

Read more:
ADHD affects girls too, and it can present differently to the way it does in boys. Here’s what to look out for

---

Five key questions for parents and children with ADHD

1. Is this child underachieving academically in relation to their ability?

Was the child bright as a preschooler but struggled at school for reasons unclear (not, for example, due to vision or hearing problems)? Did they cope OK early in school but didn’t achieve at the level expected when schoolwork got harder?

2. Is this child’s behaviour creating unreasonable levels of stress or disruption at school?

For a child with ADHD to complete a task, it must be sufficiently interesting, short or easy. If a child can’t concentrate in class, they get bored. They might talk in class, create distractions or disrupt class. Obviously, careful judgement is needed to differentiate typical child behaviour from problematic behaviour.

3. Is this child’s behaviour creating unreasonable levels of stress or disruption at home?

At home, is the child able to draw, construct with LEGO, do puzzles or play blocks for longish periods of time? Or do they find the sustained effort needed unachievable? Do they then annoy a sibling to make life more interesting, or constantly ask adults to play with them?

If a child is working on homework for half an hour, how much time is spent concentrating? Are they focused for only ten minutes and the remainder is spent guiding them back on track?

Is the parent tearing their hair out with countless reminders and finding every time they check, the child is distracted again?

Doctors, parents, teachers and the child must work together and regularly ask whether the current approach is actually providing benefit.
Shutterstock

4. Is there a significant effect on peer relationships?

Children with ADHD don’t always have the patience to wait their turn or concentrate on what peers say. They may come across as bossy; they find it easier to focus on what’s happening in their own mind but more challenging to listen and process what others say. Their peers may eventually find someone else to play with.

5. Is there an impact on self esteem?

Is this a smart child who doesn’t think they’re smart because they struggle to concentrate long enough to get work done? Do they speak negatively about themselves? It’s important to take self esteem seriously.

There are also diagnostic criteria that need to be checked.

Support strategies at home and in class

What other supports could help? Is the child sitting at the front of class? Is the teacher giving written instructions? Do they sit next to a good role model?

Has the parent done parenting classes? Have they tried home strategies rewarding good behaviour, or giving appropriate consequences for problematic behaviour?

Having a chart for the morning routine can be helpful. Many such strategies work nicely on children without ADHD. But children with ADHD often find the effort needed to earn a sticker isn’t worth it and may try to negotiate ever greater rewards.

If you’ve got to the end of that road and the child is still having problems, you might consider medication.

The first thing to know is these stimulants wear off reasonably quickly — after about four hours.
Shutterstock

---

Read more:
ADHD: claims we’re diagnosing immature behaviour make it worse for those affected

---

What does medication do?

With ADHD, it’s like your brain is running on a half-charged battery. Your concentration keeps flicking off or winding down. Medication makes it more like your brain is running with a fully charged battery.

The active ingredient in medication is usually a stimulant such as dexamphetamine or methylphenidate. You might know it by the brand name Ritalin.

These stimulants wear off quickly — after about four hours. That may help the child get through the school morning; they may need another dose at lunch and perhaps a third dose if they have after-school activities. There are also capsules that release medication more slowly.

The medication is always wearing off and you are back to square one. On the one hand, that’s a nuisance. On the other, it means you can try medication, then stop and you’ll still have the same child you had at the beginning.

You start low and increase gradually until you find a dose that lasts about four hours. The teacher can help with feedback. The dosage may need to be adjusted as the child grows. These decisions are all made with the support of the clinician.

Generally, you get improvement up to a point where no further benefit is seen. If the dosage is too high, a child may seem aggressive, depressed or “zombie-like”. Nobody wants a dosage that is not leading to a better outcome.

If you decide to use medication, the dosage may need to be adjusted as the child grows.
Shutterstock

What about side effects?

The most significant side effect is appetite suppression, so we monitor weight and height closely. Generally, weight stabilises in the long run.

Rebound hyperactivity as the medication wears off and difficulty sleeping can occur. Sometimes this can be managed by changing the dosage or by not medicating too late in the day.

The decision to give medication is made on a daily basis. If you aren’t happy, you can omit it and see how things go.

This medication improves anyone’s concentration, not just children with ADHD, so it’s also sometimes a drug of abuse (among university students, for example). When used for treating ADHD, the risk of addiction is minimal.

But if you have concentration problems, you have more scope for improvement. A child who is concentrating most of the time cannot experience much improvement.

Reviewing progress

I always ask the child: does the medication work? How do you know? I might find out from a teenager that their concentration has improved from 20% to 80% or 90% of classtime. A younger child who prefers to feel in control of their behaviour may actually remind the parent when the next dose is due.

Often I hear from parents the child is now keen to get homework done, has more friends and feels happier and more confident.

All parents want their child to feel they’re functioning and fulfilling their potential. Most will achieve this without medication. That’s plan A. Plan B is that they are fulfilling their potential and living a great life, helped by medication.

Doesn’t every child, every person, with ADHD deserve a plan B?

---

Read more:
ADHD prescriptions are going up, but that doesn’t mean we’re over-medicating

---

Alison Poulton, Senior Lecturer, Brain Mind Centre Nepean, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Introducing Edna: the chatbot trained to help patients make a difficult medical decision

Shutterstock

David Ireland, CSIRO; Clara Gaff, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, and Dana Kai Bradford, CSIRO

Allow us to introduce Edna — Australia’s first “genomics chatbot”.

The opening dialogue of Edna the chatbot.

Edna (short for “electronic-DNA”) helps patients make informed decisions about seeking “additional findings” testing.

Additional findings testing looks for variants in patients’ genes that aren’t relevant to their current health, but may be later on. For example, it can reveal if someone has an above-average chance of developing a hereditary heart condition.

But these tests can have major implications for patients and their families. Thus, individuals deciding whether they want such a test need support — which Edna can provide.

This chatbot was developed by us and our colleagues at the CSIRO and other members of the Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance.

Genomic and genetic testing

A range of medical conditions have underlying genetic causes. Historically, this has been tested with genetic testing, by looking at either a single gene or a panel of genes related to one particular condition.

In genomic testing, however, almost all the genes in a patient’s DNA are analysed using a biological sample (such as blood).

In Australia, genomic testing is done for patients with certain medical conditions, to provide more information about the condition and medical care required.

But genomic data can be analysed further in an additional findings test, to report on potential gene variants responsible for other preventable and/or treatable conditions.

Although available in the United States, additional findings tests are currently beyond immediate medical need in Australia and are only carried out in research settings. That said, conversations have started about them becoming mainstream here, too.

If additional findings tests were offered in Australia, genetic counsellors would have to spend a large proportion of their time helping patients decide whether they want one. This is where chatbots come in.

Edna the chatbot in training

For chatbots to accurately recognise human speech and provide a meaningful response, their “brain” needs to draw on a large body of data.

Many chatbot brains are developed from open source data, but this is inadequate for highly specialised fields. We developed Edna by analysing transcripts of actual counselling sessions that discussed additional findings analysis.

Edna can emulate the flow of a real patient-counsellor session, explaining various conditions, terms, concepts and the key factors patients should consider when making their decision.

For example, it prompts them to consider the personal and familial implications of undergoing an additional findings analysis. As we all share genes with our family, results from genomic testing can lead to serious conversations.

Edna’s database contains myriad details of medical conditions and terminology.

Edna has several other capabilities, such as:

• knowing when to connect a patient with a genetic counsellor, if needed

• providing general information covered in most genetic counselling sessions, allowing counsellors more time to focus on patients with complex needs

• collecting a patient’s family history

• detecting various forms of common language, such as “nan” instead of “grandmother” and “heart attack” instead of “myocardial infarct” (the medical term for heart attack)

• recognising certain temporal markers. For instance, if a patient says “my mother died around Anzac Day two years ago”, Edna will know their mother died around April 25, 2018.

Edna asks about the medical conditions of a patient’s family members.

Edna is currently undergoing a feasibility trial with patients who have already had additional findings analysis done in a research setting, as well as genetic counsellors and students.

---

Read more:
Aristotle and the chatbot: how ancient rules of logic could make artificial intelligence more human

---

The Eliza Effect and other hurdles

Past research has suggested people prefer chatbots that interact with empathy and sympathy, rather than unemotionally giving advice. This is called the “Eliza effect” — named after the first ever chatbot. Eliza was able to elicit an emotional response from humans.

Edna is quite advanced on this front. It can detect negative sentiment and even some forms of sarcasm. Still, this isn’t the same as true empathy.

Chatbots can’t yet match genetic counsellors’ ability to detect and respond to emotional cues. And “sentiment analysis” remains a significant challenge in natural language processing.

Edna can identify when a user likely needs to be connected to a real counsellor.

Since Edna provides generic information, it can’t discuss the implications of a future or previous genomic test for a specific patient. It also can’t link the patient with a support group, or provide expert medical advice.

Still, Edna represents a significant move towards a digital health solution that could take some pressure off genetic counsellors.

---

Read more:
The future of chatbots is more than just small-talk

---

Providing more genomic healthcare

Edna’s main advantage is accessibility. It can support people living remotely, or who are otherwise unable to attend face-to-face genetic counselling.

It can also be accessed at a patient’s home, where family members may be present. They can then share in the information provided and engage Edna themselves, potentially improving the chances of an accurate history capture.

As a digital interface, Edna is almost endlessly modifiable. It can be updated continuously with data compiled during interactions with patients — whether this be information on new topics, or a new way to respond to a question.

A larger-scale patient trial is planned for the near future.

David Ireland, Senior Research Scientist at the Australian E-Health Research Centre., CSIRO; Clara Gaff, Executive Director, Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, and Dana Kai Bradford, Principal Research Scientist, Australian eHealth Research Centre, CSIRO

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What did the High Court decide in the Pell case? And what happens now?

Ben Mathews, Queensland University of Technology

Two judges in the High Court of Australia this morning referred Cardinal George Pell’s application for special leave to appeal his convictions to a full bench of the High Court.

While not a full grant of special leave, this is favourable to Pell, as dismissing the application would have finalised the case and his convictions.

When the High Court hears the case in coming months, it can reject or grant the special leave application. If granted, it can then allow or dismiss the appeal.

The case is exceptionally complex and the final outcome is difficult to predict. Allowing leave to appeal does not guarantee the appeal will succeed. Here is what might happen next.

What happened with the convictions?

In December 2018, a jury unanimously found Pell guilty of five sexual offences against two 13-year-old choirboys, committed when he was Archbishop of Melbourne from 1996-97. The offences were one count of sexual penetration of a child aged under 16 through forced oral sex, and four counts of an indecent act with or in the presence of a child aged under 16. He was sentenced to six years’ prison with a non-parole period of three years and eight months.

What happened with the failed appeal?

In August 2019, Victoria’s Court of Appeal dismissed Pell’s appeal against these convictions by a 2:1 majority decision. The background is summarised elsewhere. The key issue was whether the verdicts were “unreasonable” or could not be supported on the evidence. The question was whether, given the evidence, it was “open to the jury” to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the accused was guilty.

It is not enough to overturn a guilty verdict if the court merely finds a jury “might have” had a reasonable doubt. Rather, the court must find that, on its assessment of the evidence, it was not open to the jury to have been satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. So the evidence must have “obliged” the jury to reach a not guilty verdict. Because of the jury’s role as tribunal of fact, setting aside a guilty verdict is “a serious step” (see the case M v R).

The majority judges, Chief Justice Anne Ferguson and Justice Chris Maxwell, concluded the guilty verdicts were open to the jury. They did not have a doubt about the complainant’s truthfulness or the cardinal’s guilt. They made crucial findings after careful and cogent reasoning, considering each aspect of the defence case.

---

Read more:
George Pell has lost his appeal. What did the court decide and what happens now?

---

First, the complainant was credible and reliable. His account was consistent and detailed. His recalled detail of the sacristy layout enhanced his credibility and independently confirmed his account, as it was not normally used by the archbishop.

Second, the majority judges evaluated each defence claim individually and collectively. They rejected the claim that the “opportunity” testimony (defence witnesses’ statements about where they, Pell and the choirboys would likely have been at relevant times) made the guilty verdicts unreasonable. Essentially, this testimony was not deemed sufficiently strong to make the verdict unreasonable or “not open”. Its effect was “of uncertainty and imprecision”. There was evidence showing “a realistic opportunity” for the offending.

The dissenting judge, Justice Mark Weinberg, gave extensive reasons. On his interpretation of the “opportunity” testimony – including statements by two witnesses about customarily being with Pell at relevant times – there was a “reasonable possibility” of an effective alibi for the first four offences. Weinberg himself had “a genuine doubt” about Pell’s guilt, thought there was a “significant possibility” the offences had not been committed, and inferred the jury ought to have had this doubt.

The application for special leave to appeal to the High Court

The High Court does not lightly give leave to appeal. It can only grant leave if:

• the proceedings involve a question of legal principle; or

• the interests of the administration of justice (generally, or here) require consideration of the earlier judgment.

Pell’s team made two arguments, relying on the dissenting judgment. First, they argued the majority’s approach to the “open to the jury” test was wrong, effectively requiring the applicant to exclude any possibility of the offending to have occurred, which reversed the onus and standard of proof. They also argued the majority’s belief in the complainant was not enough to overcome doubts raised by the opportunity testimony, and the alibi evidence had not been eliminated.

Second, they argued there was sufficient doubt about whether the offending was possible. This, they said, made the verdicts unreasonable, given the complainant’s account required them to be alone in the sacristy for five to six minutes. They argued that after mass and five to six minutes of “private prayer time” there was a “hive of activity” near the sacristy, and the majority incorrectly found it was reasonably open to the jury to find the offending happened during this period.

The director of public prosecutions argued there simply was no such error by the majority in applying the test, and the verdicts were not unreasonable.

In large part, the special leave application turned on the different approaches to whether the “opportunity evidence” was sufficiently strong to create enough doubt that it was “not open to the jury” to find Pell guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

---

Read more:
Victims of child sex abuse still face significant legal barriers suing churches – here’s why

---

What did the High Court say?

The transcript had not been released at the time of writing, but the two judges referred the application for special leave to hearing by a full bench (five or seven members) for argument as on an appeal. There, the full High Court can reject or grant the special leave application.

On one view, this is surprising. Applications arguing an unreasonable verdict in child sexual offence cases are typically dismissed (for example, O’Brien; in contrast GAX).

The High Court generally does not grant leave simply due to an alternative interpretation of the facts. The majority judgment in the appeal accurately stated the test. It applied the test by carefully analysing all the arguments and testimony individually and collectively, applying cogent reasoning in independently assessing the sufficiency and quality of the evidence. It weighed the evidence and expressed an independent conclusion about whether on all the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

On the other hand, the two High Court judges may reasonably feel there are important issues of legal principle and justice to consider, and that such a significant case warrants full consideration at all levels by the entire court.

What happens now?

The full hearing of the special leave application will occur in 2020. If leave is then granted, the appeal will proceed. If the appeal succeeds, the court can grant a new trial, or reverse or modify the prior judgment.

However, if special leave is refused at the full hearing, or granted but the appeal fails, the convictions stand and no further appeal is possible.

---

Read more:
Triggering past trauma: how to take care of yourself if you’re affected by the Pell news

---

For the complainant and many survivors, especially of clergy abuse, this decision will be confronting. They will hopefully be able to draw on reserves of resilience, hope, and any support services if necessary, while awaiting the High Court’s final decision.

Ben Mathews, Professor, School of Law, Queensland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Peter Dutton’s decisions on the au pairs are legal – but there are other considerations

During his time as Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton granted tourist visas to four foreign au pairs who were denied entry at the Australian border and detained, awaiting deportation.
AAP/Lukas Coch

Sangeetha Pillai, UNSW

Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton has come under scrutiny for exercising his personal powers during his time as Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to grant tourist visas to four foreign au pairs who were denied entry at the Australian border and detained, awaiting deportation.

Dutton made the decision to grant these visas at short notice and, in at least some cases, contrary to the advice of senior Border Force officials. Here I explain the scope of the minister’s legal power to grant visas in such instances, and the issues at play.

---

Read more:
Leaks target Peter Dutton over decisions on au pairs

---

Did Dutton have legal power to grant the visas?

In a nutshell, yes. Under section 195A of the Migration Act, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has the power to grant a visa to a person in detention if “the minister thinks that it is in the public interest to do so”. The minister has no obligation to grant a visa in this manner, but may do so at his or her discretion. A decision to intervene may only be made by the minister personally. This means the minister cannot delegate the power under section 195A to other Border Force personnel, although Border Force officials may provide advice and briefing information.

The minister’s power under section 195A is extremely broad. While the requirement that the power must be exercised in the “public interest” appears to impose some constraint on the minister, this is largely illusory. Courts have said that in migration matters, “public interest” is largely a matter of ministerial discretion. Section 195A drives this home by making it clear that it is up to the minister to decide whether granting a visa would be in the public interest.

Whenever the minister exercises the power under section 195, he or she must supply each House of Parliament with a statement that sets out the reasons for granting the visa. This includes the reasons for thinking that the grant is in the public interest.

The purpose of this is for transparency only: parliament has no power to overturn the minister’s decision. The transparency that can be achieved in this manner is limited by the fact that, to secure the privacy of individuals who are granted visas, identifying information must be excluded when a statement is laid before parliament. Visa decisions, including decisions under section 195A, are also excluded from administrative review.

Documents obtained via Freedom of Information request reveal that Dutton’s stated reasons for thinking that one of the visa grants was in the public interest were:

In the circumstances, I have decided that as a discretionary and humanitarian act to an individual with ongoing needs, it is in the interests of Australia as a humane and generous society to grant this person a Tourist visa.

If Dutton acted within the law, what’s the controversy?

There are two broad reasons why Dutton’s decisions to grant the au pair visas are controversial, despite falling within the scope of his ministerial power.

The first is that the breadth of ministerial discretion granted to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection under the Migration Act is itself a subject of controversy. A 2017 Liberty Victoria report reveals that the minister for immigration has 47 personal national or public interest powers – many more than any other minister. Many of these powers – including the power in section 195A – are “non-delegable, non-compellable and non-reviewable”.

In 2008, the then immigration minister Chris Evans expressed discomfort with the scope of his own power:

In a general sense I have formed the view that I have too much power. The [Migration Act] is unlike any Act I have seen in terms of the power given to the Minister to make decisions about individual cases. I am uncomfortable with that not just because of a concern about playing God but also because of the lack of transparency and accountability for those ministerial decisions, the lack in some cases of any appeal rights against those decisions and the fact that what I thought was to be a power that was to be used in rare cases has become very much the norm.

---

Read more:
How the hard right terminated Turnbull, only to see Scott Morrison become PM

---

The second reason is that Dutton’s decision to intervene swiftly to grant visas to the au pairs on public interest grounds contrasts with the manner in which other migration-related decisions have been made. For example, the department has denied medical transfers to Australia to numerous asylum seekers detained offshore, including children at risk of death.

Recent reports state that an Afghan interpreter who claims his life is in danger after helping Australian troops has been denied a protection visa, and requests to meet with Dutton have gone unanswered. Departmental statistics indicate that, historically speaking, ministerial intervention to grant a tourist visa has been very rare.

Ultimately, the legal framework provided by the Migration Act allows for these variances. However Dutton, like all Ministers, is accountable to the parliament under the principle of responsible government. The Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is currently holding an inquiry into the appropriateness of Dutton’s decision to grant visas to two of the au pairs. It is due to report by September 11.

Sangeetha Pillai, Senior Research Associate, Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW Law School, UNSW

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Leaks target Peter Dutton over decisions on au pairs

Dutton told 2GB on Thursday he had made a judgement based on the case’s merit, not his knowledge of the person who had referred it.

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

A week after his humiliating defeat in his bid for the prime ministership, Peter Dutton is facing an ever-widening row over his use of his ministerial discretion in granting visas to au pairs.

The Senate has already set up an inquiry into his decisions. Now more detailed information is emerging.

A whistleblower has leaked to Labor an email trail of correspondence showing how Dutton rejected advice from Australian Border Force, granting a visa in 2015 to French au pair Alexandra Deuwel.

Deuwel had admitted to Border Force that she planned to work on a voluntary basis, minding children and cooking, for South Australian pastoralists Callum and Skye MacLachlan. In return she would get free accommodation.

Callum MacLachlan – whose father Hugh has been a big donor to the Liberals – is related to AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan (although their named are spelled differently).

Gillon McLachlan made representations to Dutton’s chief of staff.

An email from Callum and Skye MacLachlan said there had been a “misunderstanding” that the woman planned to work for them. “She is here to spend time with our family, as we consider her to be family.”

Deuwel had in previous years worked as an au pair for the family. Border Force told Dutton that earlier in 2015 she had been warned about breaching her visa conditions.

But Dutton granted the visa, which carried the proviso she could not do in-kind work.

Dutton told 2GB on Thursday he had made a judgement based on the case’s merit, not his knowledge of the person who had referred it. He had thought the intention to deport her was “a bit rough, there’s no criminal history, she’s agreed that she wouldn’t work while she was here.”

“I am a person of integrity. I have never been compromised. I never will. People can say lots of things about me, but they won’t say that I act inappropriately. I make decisions on the merits of these cases. That’s exactly what I’ve done and I stand by the decision,” Dutton said.

On Thursday further information emerged about one of the two au pair cases earlier referred to the Senate inquiry.

Fairfax Media reported that in this case, also in 2015, a request for Dutton to override a Border Force decision had come from a one-time Queensland police service colleague of Dutton’s. Dutton granted the woman a visa.

The Guardian reported that the Italian au pair had come to work for the family.

Opposition leader Bill Shorten said Prime Minister Scott Morrison needed to explain his view on Dutton’s actions.

“I think there are a lot of Australians who might have had someone who they wanted to stay slightly longer on a visa, but they obviously don’t have the sort of access to Mr Dutton that some people have, ” Shorten said.

Former immigration department officer Sandi Logan‏ said on Twitter:

“Tweeted a few days ago there was some “stuff” coming down the pipe. Trust me: there’s more! Niagara Falls gonna look like a trickle by the time this has run its course.“

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Four MPs resign as citizenship crisis causes more havoc

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Update

Voters in four states will face byelections after three Labor MPs and a crossbencher announced they were resigning from parliament in the wake of a landmark High Court decision disqualifying ACT Labor senator Katy Gallagher on the grounds that she was a dual British citizen when she nominated for the 2016 election.

Labor’s Josh Wilson (WA), Justine Keay (TAS), and Susan Lamb (QLD) and the Centre Alliance’s Rebekha Sharkie (SA) quit within hours of the judgement.

Another byelection will also come from the proposed resignation of the ALP’s Tim Hammond (WA) who is stepping down for family reasons.

Lamb, who holds the highly marginal Queensland seat of Longman will have to renounce her British citizenship before she can recontest her seat. Bill Shorten said he was confident she could do so in time for a byelection.

Earlier story

The High Court has disqualified ACT Labor senator Katy Gallagher from sitting in parliament, in a decision opening the way for four byelections, three of them in Labor seats.

The decision, reigniting the citizenship crisis, has transformed the immediate political landscape, overshadowing Tuesday’s budget and putting immense pressure on Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, who delivers his budget reply on Thursday, to have three ALP MPs immediately quit.

Gallagher was ineligible to sit because she had not completed the renunciation of her dual British citizenship when she nominated for the 2016 election.

The four MPs in the firing line are Susan Lamb in the Queensland seat of Longman (0.8% margin), Justine Keay from Braddon in Tasmania (2.2%), Josh Wilson who holds Fremantle in Western Australia (7.5%) and crossbencher Rebekha Sharkie from the South Australian seat of Mayo (5.4%).

Labor already faces a byelection for the seat of Perth, with Tim Hammond announcing last week he would resign for family reasons.

Attorney-General Christian Porter declared the court had provided a “crisp and crystal-clear clarification” of the law. He called for the resignations of the Labor MPs by the end of the day.

Porter flatly rejected Shorten’s earlier statement that the court had set a new precedent. Shorten said Labor would now consider the implications of the decision.

Porter said for Shorten to claim it was a reinterpretation was “talking absolute rubbish”.

“We all knew what the circumstance was last October”, when the court ruled on the case of the Nationals’ Matt Canavan, Porter said.

“Bill Shorten must require the resignation of those three Labor members today, and that must occur before close of business today,” he said.

Neither side looks forward to a plethora of byelections, which are expensive and with unpredictable fallout, so close to a general election.

The contest in Longman would be testing for Labor. The Liberals would have a prospect of picking up Mayo. Sharkie is from the Centre Alliance, formerly the Nick Xenophon Team, the fortunes of which have collapsed.

University of Sydney constitutional expert Anne Twomey said the crux of the court’s decision was that the test of someone having taken reasonable steps to renounce their foreign citizenship – the argument on which Gallagher relied – applied only when the country actually or effectively would not let the person renounce. This did not apply with UK citizenship.

Twomey said the four MPs in question, who were all British citizens when they nominated, were in similar circumstances to Gallagher’s.

She added that “the real problem will be for those people from countries where it is difficult to renounce or it takes a very long time.

“Parties will have to complete pre-selection at least a year before an election to allow sufficient time for renunciation, and even this might not be enough for people from some countries.

“It will also narrow the field for filling casual vacancies to those who have no foreign citizenship, so that renunciation problems can be avoided. The big message here for anyone who might want to be a member of parliament in the future is to renounce now.”

George Williams, from the University of New South Wales, said there could be more MPs caught by the decision.

As a senator, Gallagher’s disqualification does not trigger a byelection – she is set to be replaced on a recount by the next person on the ALP ticket, David Smith.

Sharkie said she would now take urgent legal advice.

“It is my belief that the particulars of my circumstances are materially different to Senator Gallagher’s case. My paperwork was lodged and received by the UK Home Office before the election was called. My paperwork was returned before the election was held.”

Porter rejected her argument that her circumstances were different.

Gallagher said she had always acted on legal advice which indicated she satisfied the eligibility requirements. But she respected court’s decision.

“I believe that I have more to contribute to public life and I will take the time to talk with Labor Party members on how I can do this over the months ahead,” she said.

The citizenship crisis has claimed nine federal parliamentarians since the election. Another two, Barnaby Joyce and John Alexander, were either ruled ineligible or resigned but are still in parliament after being returned at byelections.

In the earlier stages of the citizenship crisis Shorten had been adamant that all Labor MPs had fulfilled the constitutional requirement on citizenship.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Explainer: what the High Court decision on Katy Gallagher is about and why it matters

Senator Katy Gallagher knew she was a British citizen at the last election, but maintains she took “all reasonable steps” to renounce it.
AAP/Lukas Coch

Lorraine Finlay, Murdoch University

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.

What is the case about?

After ten months of controversy and numerous parliamentary disqualifications, resignations and byelections, every Australian knows that section 44 of the Australian Constitution disqualifies dual citizens from sitting in the Australian parliament. Gallagher was referred to the High Court after the Parliamentary Citizenship Register revealed she was a dual British citizen when she nominated for the 2016 federal election She had gained citizenship by descent through her British-born father.

---

Read more:
If High Court decides against ministers with dual citizenship, could their decisions in office be challenged?

---

Unlike the previous cases, Gallagher admits she knew of her dual citizenship, but maintains she was still eligible because she had taken “all necessary steps” to renounce it.

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.

What will the court decide?

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.

In one of the earliest cases considering dual citizenship in 1992, the High Court raised the possibility of an “all reasonable steps” exception to the dual citizenship disqualification. In the recent “Citizenship Seven” case 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.

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?

As the prime minister has learnt, 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.

However, in both the Citizenship Seven and Hollie Hughes cases, 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.

What happens next?

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 David Smith. He was the second ALP Senate candidate for the ACT at the 2016 election.

---

Read more:
Grattan on Friday: Voters just want citizenship crisis fixed – but it isn’t that easy

---

Importantly, this is a decision that has potential impacts on at least four other parliamentarians. The citizenship declarations 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.

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.

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.

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.

Parliamentary committee report

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 inquiry into section 44.

The committee is widely expected to recommend that certain aspects of section 44 be removed through a constitutional referendum. Any such referendum could be held at the same time as the next federal election, although the prime minister has previously ruled this option out.

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.

Lorraine Finlay, Lecturer in Law, Murdoch University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Australian Politics: 22 July 2013

The ALP has backed Kevin Rudd’s proposals for reform of the party. The link below is to an article reporting on the ALP’s decision to reform the party.

For more visit:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/labor-caucus-backs-rudds-party-rule-changes/story-fn59niix-1226683134791

Cricket: ODI Disgrace

Australia played Sri Lanka in a One Day International yesterday, however the game was abandoned after the first innings and a small number of overs in the Sri Lankan innings. The game became something of a farce for a number of reasons, including the dismissal of two Australian batsmen for LBW after they had clearly hit the ball into their legs.

One of the batsmen, David Warner, was visibly furious with the decision, yet walked off following the umpire’s decision. The link below is to an article reporting on his official reprimand for dissent, which frankly I find disgraceful. Surely if an umpire makes a terrible decision you must expect some show of disappointment with the decision from the batsman being given out. This is truly a pathetic outcome for an umpire’s mistake – the batsmen is further punished.

For more visit:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-sri-lanka-2012/content/story/601605.html

Plinky Prompt: Name One of the Best Decisions You’ve Ever Made

resignation

One of the best decisions I have made, if not the best, was to resign from my job after 20 years of work there. I moved on and now work in a lesser paid job – however, my health has improved across the board as a result and I am far happier now than I was back then. I no longer work the excessive hours and have more time to do my own thing. What’s not to like.