GONE before she even arrived in federal parliament.
NSW rural Liberal Senate hopeful Hollie Hughes must now be wondering when her run of political misfortune and mistiming is ever going to end.
Ms Hughes was next in line to replace disqualified former cabinet minister and Nationals deputy-leader Fiona Nash on the NSW Coalition Senate ticket, in pole position revving up for Canberra, after a vote recount was ordered by the High Court.
But the Court has now also ruled her ineligible to serve in parliament due to holding a ‘Commonwealth office of profit’ which also breached eligibility rules, under Section 44 of the constitution.
Ms Hughes’s legal advice on the matter had suggested she’d likely be cleared of any breach, having not held her role on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal at the time of last year’s election - only accepting it afterwards and then quitting, in light of Ms Nash’s disqualification.
“I am obviously disappointed, but I respect the High Court’s decision,” the Moree based former political staffer to retired NSW Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan and former President of the NSW rural Liberals said.
“I was looking forward to representing the needs of rural and regional families, particularly those who have kids with special needs.
“I will continue my advocacy on their behalf with the Country Autism Network, as well as through my board positions on StreetWork and the Critical Window Foundation.
“I will also continue my work on behalf of rural and regional Liberal members and supporters, continuing to promote the needs of country communities.”
Ms Hughes was also left disappointed ahead of last year’s federal election when a re-run of the NSW Liberal pre-selection vote, after Malcolm Turnbull called the double dissolution election, saw her subsequently lowered to the sixth position on the Senate ticket, after previously claiming a winnable position, for a half Senate election.
Attorney General George Brandis said he wanted to read the reasons for the decision on Ms Hughes when the High Court publishes them, “so that we can understand the rationale and grounds of the decision”.
“The High Court made its orders - but hasn’t published its reasons yet, so I think it would be wise to refrain from commentary until I’ve had the opportunity to read the reasons,” he said.
Shadow Attorney General Mark Dreyfus said everyone should wait to see the reasons for how the High Court reached its conclusion to disqualify Ms Hughes.
“The High Court hasn’t given its reasons but they have clearly accepted the position put by counsel appointed to assist the court and that was to the effect that the election is a continuing process for those who were candidates at that election,” he said.
“All the High Court is saying is that the constitution must be respected.
“It’s something that the Australian Labor Party has done at all times, and regrettably, it seems that many other parties operating in Australian politics haven’t accorded the constitution the respect they should have.”
Liberal Jim Molan was next on the joint-ticket behind Ms Hughes in seventh place and is now likely to be the replacement for Ms Nash.
Senior Nationals MP and Transport Minister Darren Chester said he was now unsure if there was any hope of Ms Nash making a return to the Senate, to reclaim her cabinet role as Regional Development Minister, which Mr Chester is currently acting in.
“I would love to have Fiona Nash back in the Senate, back in the ministry, because I think she was doing a hell of a good job in her role,” he said.
“If there was a way to facilitate Fiona getting back into the Senate, I would love that to happen.
“Now, is it possible?
“I am not sure.
“We are going through what is proving to be a pretty complex process, where people who really had no idea they were going to fall foul of Section 44 of the Constitution have fallen foul of it and have paid a very heavy price, whether they are in One Nation or the Greens or the Nationals, or now in the Liberal Party, and Jacqui Lambie herself.
“I mean, it has been a really difficult time for a lot of members in the House and in the Senate.
“It is easy to say, ‘you know, you should have got your paperwork right’, but there are some things happening at the moment which I think people are a bit surprised to see how Members and Senators have fallen foul of that part of the Constitution.”
Mr Chester said there were two aspects to the current conversation on citizenship and legal questions about eligibility for parliament.
“One is about people having citizenship by descent and that has been a difficult issue, to track down individuals’ own family backgrounds and it has taken some by surprise, there is no question about that,” he said.
“The other area, this office of profit under the Crown, is one where it appears the High Court is taking a very black letter approach to that as well, and that is where Hollie Hughes has fallen foul of that through her role in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
“Now, incoming Senator, or new Senator Bartlett (Green’s Queensland Senate replacement for Larissa Waters), is now having questions asked because of his role as a university lecturer.
“I have heard other questions asked about the potential replacement for Jacqui Lambie in Tasmania because he (Steve Martin) is a Mayor in a local council, whether that is an office of profit under the Crown.”
Mr Chester said a process was now in place where members would make their declarations before December 1 to provide clarity around the descent issue.
But he said seeking greater clarity on the ‘office of profit’ issue would clarify it “once and for all and allow us to move forward with a lot more confidence and certainty as we approach the end of the calendar year”.
“I am not sure that the Australian people are going to allow us to change something like this at a referendum,” he said.
“It might be tilting at windmills to try and go down that pathway.
“There is probably some education required for potential candidates across the board – independents or party members – but also for the existing Members and Senators.
“If you look back through history, I am sure we’d find dozens of Members and Senators who served in our Parliament who, under this current interpretation of the rules, would find themselves ineligible.”