Courtesy of The Guardian, this week’s Essential Research poll has Labor’s two-party lead bouncing back to 54-46, after two weeks at 52-48. Primary votes will have to wait for later. The poll also has particularly interesting supplementary questions this week in relation to the National Broadband Network. Only 24% of respondents expressed support for the Coalition government’s fibre-to-the-node downgrade, compared with 43% who preferred Labor’s abandoned fibre-to-the-premises plan. The network’s failures are attributed to the government by 39%, compared with only 19% for Labor. Fifty-four per cent rated that the NBN would “fail to adequately meet Australia’s future internet requirements”, with 23% saying otherwise. However, 52% thought the NBN had improved their service (presumably where applicable), compared with only 17% who thought it worse and 28% about the same.
Essential Research: 54-46 to Labor
Labor bounces back in the Essential poll after a brief lull, as respondents mark the government down on the National Broadband Network.
Hey guys. Interesting happening no politics.
a few days ago, gave email address (disposable gmail) for an online competition. Silly me.
Must have gotten my mobile # in there somehow. Just got a Robo call from “The Australian Taxation Office” saying should call them back on tnumber ####### about a time sensitive matter before they take any action against me.
Yup, classic put the frighteners on an old person scam. huing on till the call ended in case it went through to a person i could politely abuse, but it just cut off. doG’s but there are some bastards out there.
will be interesting to see if they follow it up somehow.
El
No. The assumption is that the candidate has filled out all the forms correctly, paid the appropriate fees, posted them to the appropriate address, and is waiting for a letter of confirmation.
That would qualify as ‘reasonable steps’ – the failure of the other party to respond within a reasonable time period wouldn’t negate those.
About the Tasmanian Labor senator in the spot light, I think the part of S44 applicable is reasonable steps to renounce BEFORE nominating. From what I’ve read she had sent in the paperwork prior to nominating but hadn’t received the final notice. If empirical Roberts had taken the steps he finally did before nominating his arse would in all probability still be polishing a senate seat. That’s my reading of things for what its worth.
zoomster
Such cannot be meaningful known in the absence of a confirmation of renunciation of some kind though. A candidate might sincerely believe they did that, to the fullest of their abilities and then find out potentially after election they did not do so to the satisfaction of foreign law.
El
In which case, they’ve taken reasonable steps to renounce.
Would be hilarious to see Libs refer someone in Labor to HC on a tenuous basis just to have their backside handed to them again.
I highly doubt that’s what briefly is arguing, and in any case, it is an irrelevant point when it comes to Justine Keay and would not be ruled upon by the HC given the facts of the case i.e. her renunciation was successful.
C@tmomma @ #889 Wednesday, November 1st, 2017 – 1:21 pm
I love Assassins Creed, but there have been so many.
Voice Endeavour @ #892 Wednesday, November 1st, 2017 – 1:25 pm
I also like sim games. It is currently US$7.50 on Steam.
So accidentally forgetting to include you’re renunciation fee is good then ? How is the Court supposed to determine if you did so accidentally or maliciously to avoid revocation of your citizenship ?
Note: As I said before I don’t think this situation should result in disqualification but it does lead into some interesting potential quagmires of subjectivity the Court has scrupulously.avoided so far.
The War on Terror has cost America $250 million a day for 16 Years
American taxpayers have spent $1.46 trillion on wars abroad since September 11, 2001.
The Department of Defense periodically releases a “cost of war” report. The newly released version, obtained by the Federation of American Scientists Secrecy News blog, covers the time from the September 11th terrorist attacks through mid-2017.
The Afghanistan War from 2001 to 2014 and Iraq War from 2003 to 2011 account for the bulk of expenses: more than $1.3 trillion. The continuing presence in Afghanistan and aerial anti-ISIS operations in Iraq and Syria since 2014 have cost a combined $120 billion.
The report’s costs include only direct war-related expenses such as operating and maintaining bases, procuring equipment, and paying for and feeding troops. It most notably does not include the expense of veteran’s benefits for troops who serve in these wars or the intelligence community’s expenses related to Global War on Terror.
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/the-war-on-terror-has-cost-america-250-million-a-day-for-16-years/
How can the Court decide on any case at all?????
Highly recommended, especially for that price if you like games like Sim City. Much more focus on traffic management and getting your roads right.
It can get expensive if you buy all the DLC, but it’s not needed to enjoy the game – I’ve been grabbing the major expansions when they’re about a year old and 50% off, so I’m a couple behind.
Exactly. Surely the relevant consideration would be the date the renunciation was successfully processed by the foreign power, not the date the confirmation is received.
If you follow Elau’s argument to its logical conclusion, then a letter getting lost in transit would be enough to disqualify an MP, regardless of whether they had actually successfully renounced their other citizenship by the required deadline or not.
Most courts do not allow the vagaries of the postal system to impair the facts of the case. I can’t see why the HC would be any different.
JimmyD
Actully I’d go for date the renunciation was successfully processed even playing Devil’s advocate. That’s an objective measure not reliant on any subjective knowledge.
It does mean the candidates may not know with absolute certainty but the HC hasn’t so far treared a candidate’s knowledge as even relevant for these purposes.
If you want a reality check about Donald Trump and the Trumpkins, this piece by David French in the NYT will give you some much-needed perspective. America is not Australia.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/opinion/mueller-trump-supporters.html?emc=edit_th_20171031&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=70388838
‘So accidentally forgetting to include you’re renunciation fee is good then ?’
If it was truly an accident, possibly – similarly, if a form was filled out in good faith but incorrectly, that would also be the case.
Its about the actions of the candidate, not the actions of the foreign power.
The HC might decide that a ‘reasonable person’ (which has a definition in law) might have allowed more time for the application to be checked over, but this would also depend on circumstances – if, for example, there was a history of correspondence going back some time discussing with the relevant foreign power your intention to renounce, that would be viewed more favourably than if you downloaded a form off the internet the day before nomination.
And fees to foreign nations can be quite tricky – I found it almost impossible, for example, to transfer 11 Euros to Lithuania, and in the end had to get one of my aunts living in the country to pay the sum for me.
phoenixRED
“American taxpayers have spent $1.46 trillion on wars abroad since September 11, 2001.”
.
Way worse than a “mere” 1.46
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/10/17/the-trillion-wars/uPVfSuDutnTZl5fIQ7YllK/story.html
The “recent estimates” referred to.
http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/
If the foreign power had a note on their website that all applications would be dealt with within two working weeks, and they took three to get back to you, I think you’d be safe, for example.
…there does have to be some wiggle room. Although most parties make every effort to preselect candidates well before elections, no one really knows what date the election will actually be. The HC has to allow for people who decided to run the day the election was announced, which would only allow them a week before nominations closed.
Elaugaufein @ #895 Wednesday, November 1st, 2017 – 12:29 pm
My understanding is that the steps taken must be effective under the applicable foreign law. Thus I assume that if someone submits a valid renunciation prior to nominating and then it takes the foreign state some weeks or months to actually process it but the renunciation is ultimately confirmed then the candidate/MP is in the clear.
And also that if someone submitted an invalid renunciation, whether by not paying the fees or not using the right form or whatever else, then either 1) the foreign state will tell them that their renunciation was ineffective or 2) the foreign state will say nothing until prompted by the candidate making a follow-up request, and then confirm that the candidate is still a citizen. At that point they can be referred to the HC and will be given the boot.
Unclear is what happens if the foreign state remains completely silent (ignoring both the renunciation, and any attempts at follow-up). I assume that would count as hostile/deliberately frustrating, and in that case the HC might hold that any attempt at renunciation, including improper/incomplete ones, may count as reasonable steps.
And also unclear is what happens if someone is referred between when they’ve submitted their (correct or not) renunciation and when they get a response back from the foreign state. Perhaps in this case the HC resolves to wait for an answer from the foreign state, and then renders their decision accordingly.
So I’d think nobody gets off by accident, whether a true/good-faith accident or not. But also that nobody gets punished due to a foreign state taking an excessive amount of time to process/confirm a renunciation. The test would be 1) did the candidate take reasonable steps to renounce prior to nominating, and 2) were those steps ultimately effective.
If the answer to both is ‘Yes’, then they’re fine. In any other case, they’re gone and no reason, explanation, or excuse will save them (short of deliberate hostility from the foreign state).
My apologies I have to bow out here, I just almost fell asleep on top of my phone.
…at the first election I was a candidate, I was asked to run at the last minute (the party had to get the nominations in first thing Friday morning, which meant they had to be finalised by Thursday evening; I was asked to run on the Tuesday afternoon). If I had had a citizenship to renounce, the most I could have done was ring the embassy and then fax them a form (pre internet days).
That would be an interesting one to run by the HC, but I would speculate that it would still meet the reasonable steps requirement.
A R
I don’ t think your 2 applies. It’s only 1 that counts.
Elaugaufein @ #921 Wednesday, November 1st, 2017 – 2:07 pm
Don’t worry, happens all the time to me. Well, not ALL the time. 🙂
Might try the Cities Skylines game – absolutely loved SimCity. Esp SC4 which I have kept using for long after the sequel came out, including all of the community generated mods from SimTropolis. Haven’t tried the reboot, I haven’t been game to see how much they gutted it as from all accounts it reached its peak at SC4
I see a few LIB’s want an audit. Is that very smart? They are in government, and only just. They have the most to lose.
zoomster @ #922 Wednesday, November 1st, 2017 – 1:10 pm
Isn’t my 2 the reason why Roberts was disqualified? As in, even if sending an e-mail could be considered by some to be a reasonable effort to renounce citizenship, it’s not actually an effective approach and therefore insufficient:
I think the effectiveness of the steps taken has been deemed relevant, and Keane’s remarks seem to imply that if someone were to submit an application “not accompanied by the prescribed fee” it would also fall into the same boat. Whether the fee was deliberately or accidentally omitted would be irrelevant.
The message seems to be “renounce correctly, or be disqualified”.
shiftaling @ #925 Wednesday, November 1st, 2017 – 2:11 pm
I feel uncomfortably like an advertisement for saying this, but that Steam price I quoted is part of a sale with about 14 hours left. Since I already feel like promoter anyway – It also runs on Mac.
Question @ #926 Wednesday, November 1st, 2017 – 2:15 pm
We are talking about the Liberal Party here. Their only motivation, from go to whoa, is to damage the Labor Party. They think if it damages them they can tidy that up afterwards from the position of being in government and having the Murdoch media onside.
Elaugaufein @ #903 Wednesday, November 1st, 2017 – 10:43 am
The difference in this case is there is an established process for renunciation of citizenship. Provided you’ve filled out the form properly, supplied all required supporting documentation and paid the appropriate fee, the term “application” is entirely arbitrary, the actual renunciation and notification of such is a formality.
The problem with The Sims games is the DLC after you buy the basic game. 🙁
A R
Because it isn’t a ‘reasonable step’ not to follow the instructions given. Once you have followed the instructions given (which includes sending the appropriate paperwork to the appropriate address), the length of time it takes to process them – or if they get processed at all – is irrelevant.
You could conceivably have a foreign power which kept drawing out the process indefinitely, or one which was in such chaos that normal processes simply couldn’t apply.
No more climbing Uluru! Announcement just made.
…if I decide on my lonesome that all I have to do is ring up the Lithuanian embassy and say I no longer want to be a citizen, that isn’t ‘reasonable steps’. I have to demonstrate that I have tried to find out, to the best of my ability, whether or not I am a citizen and what steps I need to take to renounce, and then complied with the information given.
Suppose my country of dual citizenship is involved in a civil war. I do all I can to contact someone in authority to find out what to do, and still can’t find out what process I should follow. I would think that -having proof that I have made every effort to do so – ‘reasonable steps’ might consists of something like an advertisement in a newspaper, or hiring a lawyer to investigate the process.
One of the winning advocates in the HC thought he had lost 5-2.
Not only a very conservative court, hard to read.
Hard to see how the Liberals were dopey; Machiavellian yes; dopey no. Hard to see what it has to do with Labor; they are not there to protect the Nationals from their coalition partner; and how are they dopey if they don’t.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/nov/01/barnaby-joyce-dopey-liberal-and-labor-mps-let-nationals-take-citizenship-rap
“American taxpayers have spent $1.46 trillion on wars abroad since September 11, 2001.”
Never mind they can just print MORE, one day that will come back to bite them!.
zoomster @ #932 Wednesday, November 1st, 2017 – 1:25 pm
I think we’re in complete agreement on that.
I was mainly addressing whether “I submitted the proper paperwork, but ‘accidentally’ forgot to pay the fee” would ever be considered an acceptable excuse. I don’t think it would be.
imacca
Haig was actually quite relevant to the campaign in Palestine.
Haig, leading the British campaign in France, where the armies were dug in was on a ‘loser’ no matter what happened.
Allenby (leading the Egyptian Expeditionary Force (EEF) and Haig were serious competitors and hated each other with a passion. Allenby was liked by his troops while Haig didn’t engender any such feeling from his troops. The rivalry became such an issue that David Lloyd George decided to put them on separate continents!
While the action in Palestine after June 1917 was really a bit of a sideshow, the main objective of keeping the Turks away from the Suez Canal already having been achieved and bearing in mind what was going on in France, the Palestine campaign made good reading in the British press at the time and made Allenby a celebrity. Being in the EEF was seen as a very desirable posting.
The contrast between Allenby, on horseback with cavalry sword in hand, leading his men in big sweeping movements in the desert, kicking the Turks arse and taking places with names mentioned in the Bible, making his entry into Jerusalem on foot via the Jaffa Gate and Haig, leading men stuck in mud in France and losing huge numbers of men was stark.
CTaR1
MacArthur v Nimitz.
A R
I think it would depend on whether you could convincingly prove it was accidental – for example, I’ve failed to complete a payment on line a couple of times, when – for example – I’ve been given the wrong bank account number or written it down wrongly. In those circumstances, I can prove intent to pay, even if the payment didn’t occur.
Barnaby’s the dope and didn’t sort out his citizenship. Typical right winger, blame someone, anyone else for their stuffups.
I suppose Barnaby could have blamed Bill Shorten. The ‘logic’ was set out in a cartoon I saw a couple of months ago:
Barnaby -> citizenship -> NZ -> Sheep -> Shearing -> AWU -> Shorten
C@tmomma
“The interesting question isn’t whether so many Republicans are demonstrating a striking degree of hypocrisy, but why.”
It’s happened before, and will happen again. When Bill Clinton was mired in his sex scandals, the Republicans were utterly rabid in their attacks. After all, it confirmed what they all suspected of him. But when Republican congressmen were dropping like flies because of their own sex scandals (at the same time), they didn’t turn a hair.
Another example was when Obama was photographed next to an image of Fidel Castro (during his Cuba trip), Trump supporters saw it as proof of Obama’s communist sympathies. When confronted with a photo of Ronald Reagan under a bust of Lenin (taken during one of Reagan’s O/S visits), Trump supporters failed to see any equivalence. “But it’s different!” – they proclaimed. “We just KNOW Obama is a commie”.
This rank hypocrisy a form of rationalisation. When someone they already despise does something bad, it confirms their preconceived views of that person. The behaviour typifies them. But when it’s one of ‘their own’, the same behaviour is an aberration, or a conspiracy by others. So it can be dismissed.
Boerwar
CTaR1
MacArthur v Nimitz.
*******************************************
Eisenhower vs Patton vs Montgomerey
One of my favourite books is by somewhat controversial historian David Irving :
“The War Between The Generals ”
This is one of the great untold stories of our time – that of the little band of generals entrusted with a historic task: invading and liberating Nazi-occupied Europe. They were supposed to be fighting the Germans, but some of their fiercest battles were fought against each other.
Dwight D. Eisenhower – sincere, indecisive, desperate to hold the Alliance together. Against him was Field-Marshal Bernard Montgomery, who strove ceaselessly to gain authority. Cavilling against them both were the others – the outrageous Patton,
PhoenixRed
“One of my favourite books is by somewhat controversial historian David Irving :”
Is this the same David Irving the Holocaust denier?
Hmmm… *somewhat* controversial…?
Bw
Yep, same.
Haig and Allenby were actually in the same Sandhurst class. Haig was judged the better man on a horse!
Talking of games, if you want something quick, but quite interesting and mostly non violent, try What Remains of Edith Finch.
The makers, Giant Sparrow should be congratulated for trying something different.
kakuru
PhoenixRed
“One of my favourite books is by somewhat controversial historian David Irving :”
Is this the same David Irving the Holocaust denier?
Hmmm… *somewhat* controversial…?
**********************************************
You are right Kakuru – he was sure controversial and as you say a Holocaust denier – which sadly reflects on some decent stuff he wrote on other subjects like the Generals . I think it was Kezza that wrote on here earlier that she enjoyed his “The trail of the Fox” – about Rommel
He was jailed for his outspoken denials and was sensationally beaten in a court case by Deborah Lipstadt – in book and DVD as “Denial” …….for his denials, anti-semetic and racist overtones ……
From my reading there are two classes of dual citizens.
1. Those where there exists a process to renounce citizenship;
2. Those where the other country doesn’t allow renouncement.
In situation 1. reasonable steps is having completed all steps that allow the other country to consider your application, lodging of all applicable forms and documentation, and the payment of any applicable fees before the close of nominations. This would be on the provision that your application was ultimately successful.
Anything less than this and you’re gone.
To argue that an error in completing an application was accidental is introducing a subjective element into the process that the HC seems to want to avoid.
Was the error an accident or did the person wish to maintain their citizenship?
Situation 2. is more complex and the HC hasn’t really outlined what reasonable steps are in this case as highlighted by the extreme efforts of Sam.