Talk:James O'Loghlin (politician)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:James O'Loghlin (politician)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There is a much more comprehensive article about this James Vincent O'Loghlin in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. See http://adbonline.anu.edu.au/biogs/A110091b.htm 122.108.167.75 (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Peter O'Loghlin (grandson)

Last edited at 05:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 19:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Marksmanship

I removed this:

He was a crack shot, and an active member of the Irish Corps of the 10th A.I.R.

from the politics section. An editor might want to add it back in to a more appropriate location. 19:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAmNitpicking (talk • contribs)

Status as a Senator in 1907

The infobox currently records O'Loghlin as being in office as a senator from 11 July 1907 – 20 December 1907. I have added a note to clarify this reflected the dates from when he was appointed to the Senate by the South Australian parliament to when the High Court held that appointment was invalid. I have adopted the note from the entry in the Parliamentary Handbook.

Given the current controversy surrounding Culleton & possibly Day I thought it may be easier to resolve how wikipedia informs people in relation to O'Loghlin's status in that time. In this regard I note that the parliamentary handbook is consistent with the contemporaneous Senate Hansard (eg 19 July 1907 which records his questions at page 752 (22 of the pdf). The list of Senators at pg 3 of the pdf post dates the High Court declaration that his appointment was void as it includes a note to that effect and refers to the subsequent election of Vardon in the special election in 1908.

Anyone of course is welcome to express their views, but I have pinged @Wikiain, IgnorantArmies, Jack Upland, The Drover's Wife, WWGB, ScottDavis, and Frickeg: being those who have expressed a view on this topic in relation to Culleton (& I apologise if I have missed anyone). It should go without saying, but I will say it anyway, this discussion is about the proper way to reflect O'Loghlin's status as a person whose Senate appointment was declared void, not an invitation to discuss the other person.

For convenience I have listed those in relation to Federal parliament along with the High Court judgment

Senate

• Joseph Vardon Blundell v Vardon [1907] HCA 75, (1907) 4 CLR 1463.
• James O'Loghlin Vardon v O'Loghlin [1907] HCA 69, (1907) 5 CLR 201.
• Robert Wood Re Wood [1988] HCA 22, (1988) 167 CLR 145
• Heather Hill (described in info box as Senator elect) Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30, (1999) 199 CLR 462

House of Representatives

• Robert Blackwood Chanter v Blackwood (No 1) [1904] HCA 2, (1904) 1 CLR 39 (No 2) [1904] HCA 48, (1904) 1 CLR 121 (No 3) [1904] HCA 18, (1904) 1 CLR 456
• Malcolm McEacharn Maloney v McEacharn [1904] HCA 3, (1904) 1 CLR 77.
• Edwin Kerby Kean v Kerby [1920] HCA 35, (1920) 27 CLR 449.
• Phil Cleary Sykes v Cleary [1992] HCA 60, (1992) 176 CLR 77

If we reach a consensus, that may help inform a consistent approach to others whose election or appointment is void. Find bruce (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the way you've done it here is great and is most consistent with the parliamentary sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this, Find bruce. Personally, I am waiting to see what happens (a) on the Senate website, where the category "Former Senators" has been emptied except for former Presidents of the Senate, and (b) in the presumably imminent High Court judgement in the Day case, which maybe the President of the Senate is awaiting too. Wikiain (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Great job - I agree that this is a very good way of doing it. @Wikiain: - the officially-sanctioned Biographical Dictionary might help you out for senators who left office before 1983; see O'Loghlin's entry here. Otherwise the profiles are all still there, just not listed easily (e.g. Culleton) Frickeg (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to have been obscure. I'm waiting to see whether the Senate website puts the "former Senators" back (as surely it will for most if not all of them) but with a different designation for those (if they are included) who never were (validly) elected. If I were the President of the Senate, I'd be waiting to see whether the High Court's forthcoming judgement in the Day case provides any assistance on that. I'll get notification of when that judgement is due and of the judgement itself and will share. Wikiain (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've said this before, but I feel like people whose first exposure to this issue was Culleton assume that decision had a far greater importance than it did: to my knowledge there's nothing in the High Court decision (at least on the point being discussed here) that's changed since Wood and Cleary. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Quite: the Culleton decision has not changed the law. It has confirmed that, when an election is found to be invalid, the person who was apparently elected to the position never was in that position. The question I have come in here on is whether WP or the Parliament should describe that person as "former". I am understanding the near emptying of the Senate website category "Former Senator" as indicating that the President of the Senate is in doubt on that score. And I am anticipating that he may be waiting to see whether the High Court's decision in the Day case may assist on that issue. Whatever appears on the Senate website will be something for us to take into account. As will, anyway, be the Day decision itself. Wikiain (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to consider and comment. I have tried to tease out the comments to highlight areas of agreement. Former Senator is there consensus that former is not applicable to a person who has been declared to have never validly been a senator? It seems to me that former implies that a person was at some point validly a senator & that has now ceased. The list of former senators was a search option that has been removed. If however you go to this url, you can still access the information. The list however is incomplete as I checked to see what it listed for Dunn and Wood, but neither are listed. Day I agree with Wikiain that the High Court will be interesting, including whether a recount will distort the voters' real intentions, but also whether Day was ineligible to sit in the previous parliament. In terms of the issues under discussion here, I don't think the High Court judgment will shed any additional light, even if it finds Day was ineligible from 2015, partly because the questions referred give rise to binary answers, but also the limited powers of the High Court under sections 379 and 360 of the Electoral Act.

Changes since 1907 I agree that the Culleton decision was an application of the law to unusual circumstances & did not make any major changes. I would go slightly further than The Drover's Wife & say that neither Wood nor Cleary changed the 150+ years of law in relation to the consequences of being disqualified from being elected. There was however a subtle change in the practice of the Senate & House. In 1907 the Senate Hansard lists both Vardon & O'Loghlin as being members of the Senate but with the notation as to the dates their election & appointments were declared void. Similarly the Senate biography that Frickeg helpfully linked to, lists O'Loghlin as a senator for 1907, despite the text noting this appointment was declared void. Fast forward to 1988 - Hansard for 2 June 1988 lists Wood with a notation that his "Place in Senate reported vacant" & on the next sitting day Hansard for 22 August shows Dunn as a member & Wood is omitted from the list.

What we are trying to communicate As I see it, there are 2 conflicting facts we are trying to communicate (1) the person, in this case O'Loghlin, swore an oath, took their seat in the Senate & did all the things a Senator does, participates in debates, vote on bills & motions etc & (2) the election or appointment was void & the person had no right to be in the Senate. This is easy enough to put in prose, much harder in the short form in the info-box. It seems that everyone so far is happy enough with the way the note in this article communicates that, although it could probably be polished a little. Perhaps the unresolved issue is the title in the infobox "Senator", which has attracted some criticism. As I noted above there seems to be consensus that "Former Senator" is inappropriate to communicate this. I note that Heather Hill is described as "Senator-elect" which strikes me as about right for her as someone who was declared elected, but never sat. I am not aware of any similar term for void or invalid, but perhaps we can do something similar here, say "Sat as a Senator" for the period, coupled with the note about being subsequently declared void? It would mean for O'Loghlin separating 1907 from the subsequent periods as a (valid) Senator, but I think it could work. Other suggestions ? -- Find bruce (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Find bruce: excellently put, if I may say so. Like you, I'm not expecting the Day case to say anything substantively new about the consequences of invalidity; the Day and Culleton cases are much the same in that respect. But I am hoping, and maybe the President of the Senate is hoping, that the Court will find a clear and handy way of referring to those consequences. If it does, the President would have good reason to adopt it. And I think that, in that case, we should too. We shouldn't have to wait very long. Better not, in my view, to introduce anything else for the moment. Wikiain (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I am content to wait, especially as there is no particular urgency. Apart from anything else, this will give any other interested editor an opportunity to comment.-- Find bruce (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)