The recent action and excitement in federal politics continues to make no impression on the polls. This week’s reading of the BludgerTrack aggregate nudges very slightly to the Coalition on two-party preferred, but the vagaries of state breakdowns cause Labor to pick up two on the seat projection, with a gain apiece in New South Wales and Victoria. The only new addition this week is the regular Essential Research result, which provided no new data on leadership ratings. Full results on the sidebar.
Ratsak
Most probable. However who is next if she does get punted?
Labor? Green?
P1, I have no personal political ambitions. I’m motivated by my commitment to equality and to opposing prejudice. This stems from a long series of events in the life of my family – and in my life too – that resulted in dispossession, alienation, violence and, more than any of these sorrows, also in experiences of liberation.
I’m with you on the dual citizenship being an outdated xenophobic requirement.
The only argument for it is the patriotism one which is really just a redneck one and that a dual citizen has a place to flee to after “betraying” Oz, which is rubbish as any person in the pay of another country would be gladly accepted regardless of whether they had citizenship or not.
ones railing for queen and country are usually the ones solely looking after their own interests in their own backyard only.
dual citz requirement likely sees Aus miss out on many good candidates.
problem is getting it through in a referendum, I would like to see a series of referendum questions each election so as to minimise cost and keep the issues before the people.
dual citzs, ooffice of profit, aboriginal recognition, treaty, bill of rights, republic,
UN human rights committee says mandatory detention policy is unlawful and Australia cannot ‘pick and choose’ which international laws it follows.
I see Turnbull has joined Dutton in blaming activists for the current stand off.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/nov/10/australia-should-bring-manus-and-nauru-refugees-to-immediate-safety-un-says
And what sort of warped bragging is this shit from Turnbull ~
Briefly
Frankly you are off the reservation on this one.
What you fail to even grasp is that in a case of war or significant many, many, many people could be considered to POTENTIALLY have divided loyalties. These could be due to prior national loyalties, religion, political beliefs,blackmail or corruption. Indeed practically everyone other than the bashit crazy One Nation types will have divided loyalty to a greater or lesser degree,.
It could be due to political objection to the war (eg Vietnam, Iraq) it could be because of politics (eg reluctance to fight communists in the 30s, it could be because you believed in fascism (eg many of the British aristocracy (eg Edward VII, Mitford girls), it could be because of religion eg Muslims not wanting to fight others, Jewish people not wanting to kill Jews, or separatist/revolutionary fervour (eg Irish in WWI) or it could be because of divided national loyalties eg when parents or grandparents born in the nationa at which you are at war.
The point is briefly that every individual is different and must make their OWN judgment call on such issues. It is not a foregone conclusion and I can think it many instances families could be divided. As we know in the UK with ISIS types, the sons and daughters of immigrants become radicalised, even where their parents were fully committed to the UK and its principles. Indeed in a family of say 4 kids it is probably more likely than not that ONE of the kids will hanker for their homeland/heritage, usually because they feel alienated already.
Therefore Briefly it is bleeding obvious that anyone of dual nationality has an increased likelihood of having loyalty to country of origin more than to Australia. It might be as trivial as who they barrack for at the Olympics, but in the case of more significant conflicts it could be more significant.
Why do you think it became essential for the Governor General to be an Australian rather than a Brit. It was because the mood of Australia changed and the interests of the two countries could no longer be seen as interchangeable.
I would argue that up until about 1980, Australia and NZ were pretty interchangeable too, but that has changed in recent times.
Really? I just argue because I enjoy it.
Nothing at all. And them doing so and even self referencing MPs to leave Trumble looking the flat footed Bumbler isn’t out of the question. Shorten rarely leaves the other guy with the initiative for long. I’ve no doubt at all that he and Labor will be doing something dramatic to put themselves in the position to control how it all unfolds and bring Brian’s cunning plan to delay until next year down around his ears.
….and bemused, you can dine on your prejudice. It will nourish your capacity for contempt.
Actually British citizenship, once renounced may be re-obtained, only if you renounce it a second time is it gone for ever.
BiGD
I thought it was only where you were stateless, lost other citizenship you were hoping to get, not change of mind thing?
‘…which is rubbish as any person in the pay of another country would be gladly accepted regardless of whether they had citizenship or not.’
It’s more about having a valid passport to use to leave the country – for example, if a court order had insisted you hand in your Australian one.
Turnbull doing an interview presser now
Cheers Boris
✌️
General Jim
Hang on. Briefly’s not a fan of s44(i)?
😉
Just watched Kerry Schott explain the NEG.
This policy is a dog.
jenauthor @ #146 Friday, November 10th, 2017 – 11:08 am
Nothing, but what’s to say they completely address all citizenship problems?
One other area re dual citz I had a query on was does it apply to non-successful candidates or only those candidates that get elected/ appointed.
what if you had labor, lib and nat running in a seat. Lib got elected on nat preferences but nat candidate was a dual citizen, held an office of profit or benefited from govt contracts.
could the result be challenged on basis nat candidate and thus votes for them not valid therefore labor candidate should have been elected?
I don’t think this applies for the senate as HC appears to have upheld in Day that votes were for party not person, but with reps could be different.
Briefly
In the case of Monash, I think he DID have to satisfy loyalty scrutiny. It may not have been formal but I believe it was pretty intense.
No The Court Will so Hold in this presser instead only the court can decide
I am one who think that s44 should be repealed in its entirety, as it places restrictions on who we can vote for, and it creates different requirements on different citizens for stand for and sit in parliament. The only rule really should be that any candidate must be an Australian citizen and on the electoral role.
In particular, the limitations of the “foreign power” restriction is especially unfortunate. In Australia today, some 52% of the population is entitled to dual citizenship (I myself have Australian and Irish – through my grandfather – and I am entitled to Maltese through my wife), and it seems like an unreasonable thing to me that some Australians need to make a big sacrifice that others do not. Keay’s emotional response to renouncing her Btitish heritage is a salient recent example. It’s all very well to say that such people should give up their dual citizenship, but the problem is that many will not and so therefore will not ever put themselves forward as a candidate. I am of the view that we should encouraging more, and not fewer, of our fellow citizens to get involved in politics.
But beyond that, s44 can (and I suspect will) eventually be held up to ridicule. Given what we now know about Russian interference in the U.S. election, what might happen if Vladimir Putin decided to grant every single one of our parliamentarians non-revocable Russian citizenship. The entire parliament would, under the current reading of the law, be immediately disqualified. Surely we Australians should be the ones with sole control over who sits in our parliament?
Boris @ #121 Friday, November 10th, 2017 – 6:51 am
For me I think three dates are relevant in the case of a recount in the Senate.
1. The close of nominations.
2. The final declaration of the results.
2. The date of the recount.
So, if you were eligible to be initially elected and you were eligible on the day of the recount then you have no problems.
What your situation is between the declaration of results and the recount should be irrelevant.
can have practical applications sometimes
Really? I just argue because I enjoy it.
Yar, can be useful, I do a bit of consulting where I have to put forward positions backed by facts, previous case histories, reviews and court judgements.
Arguments are good for thinking processes, reasonableness bit and stuff, I do like the toing and froing and it is very polite compared to other discussions.
Thanks Ratsak
El,
If you are around The Guardian has an article on the seats of Maiwar, McConnel and South Brisbane for the QLD election you’d like
Cheers Boris
No worries Briefly, couldn’t really appreciate your argument at first but can now see the fullness of it
briefly @ #156 Friday, November 10th, 2017 – 11:17 am
No prejudice involved at all.
Would members of a football club be happy to have as the captain of their first grade team a member of another club?
I think not.
It is much the same sort of thing. If you want to be in the Legislature, you can’t hold citizenship of another nation.
While there is provision for renunciation of other citizenships, this is perfectly fair.
Strategically, if labor tabled all its papers would leave Turnbull wedged yet again. If they try to block – looks like they are hiding their own truth. If they fail to follow suit – it also looks like they’re hiding the truth. If they follow suit they might be caught out week and truly with even more issues and failed renouncements than they are saying.
Twice now they have told offenders to keep their mouths shut. How many more might be in the same boat?
For me I think three dates are relevant in the case of a recount in the Senate.
She would still have to resign her govt position before accepting the senate position too BiGD, so doing that well before the recount and declaration is important I think.
No it doesn’t and no they wouldn’t. I think even Windhover would agree with me that the HC has been quite explicit that such a scenario would be treated as not applicable to s44.
Consulting stuff involves competition and other matters, I don’t have any legal qualifications, so dont rely on anything I say, but it is sweet to get wins against those who have.
Me thinks Labor tabling their paperwork is an excellent idea.
jenauthor @ #174 Friday, November 10th, 2017 – 11:30 am
Please define “all its papers”?
Strong and swift disclosure is Labor’s talking point.
If there is an election weare ready for it.:Tanya Plibersek
Turnbull boasts of “turning back” boats bound for New Zealand. By what right? I guess only those with perceived asylum seekers, but it is still totally unlawful.
Precisely Jen. If you and I can see it, then the Labor brains trust is all over it. (and Trumble probably has no inkling)
Labor’s doing what it’s doing to ensure that when all their paperwork lands it is a knockout blow. They are clearly preparing to dump everything. The questions will be around how and when to do that for maximum carnage on the other side.
PM Shorten would be a good Christmas present 🙂
Bemused – you know what documents I was talking about – don’t be an ass
Any problem is more likely to be with what is not tabled rather than what is.
Dummies like Barnaby were oblivious they had a problem. They would table nothing.
And after all the NZ issue, it now looks like he may have a UK issue. So if he had tabled his papers, presumably they would relate to NZ only.
“However they could take approach with Hughes for the senate vacancy that date of nomination is date of announcing availability to fill the position.”
As far as I’m aware they don’t ask about your availability. They just conduct the recount and inform the High Court of the result, who then declares a candidate elected. I think the reasoning should be that as long as you’ve resigned the office of profit prior to the declaration of election that is enough. This is because there is no conflicted interest at any relevant time.
Finding that someone has to not hold an office of profit after they’ve lost election on the off chance that a winning candidate will be found to be invalid would be absurd in my view because it is a period for up to 6 years for Senate candidates.
Ratsak, you are probably correct to note that the Court probably would not find the parliament ineligible in those circumstances (though given the experience of the last few months, it could potentially lead to a month or two of chaos while they made that decision), but I was trying to illustrate the broader point that the eligibility or otherwise of any particular candidate is in the final analysis determined by the citizenship laws of other countries, something which we can’t control.
Lovey @ #181 Friday, November 10th, 2017 – 11:36 am
Piracy on the high seas.
Kidnapping and unlawful detention.
At the very least.
This ‘Political Gang’, as Kim Beazley once termed them, has made Australia a criminal nation.
Boris @ #150 Friday, November 10th, 2017 – 7:17 am
If you are renouncing because your new country does not allow duel citizenship, or you have not yet acquired your new citizenship, they place a provision requiring you to produce evidence of having obtained the new citizenship by a certain date.
If you do not produce that evidence, then you automatically reacquire British citizenship so you are not left stateless.
This is different to what I was referring to.
jenauthor @ #184 Friday, November 10th, 2017 – 11:39 am
No, it is a serious question and I cite an example in my comment @185.
It is not as simple as you seem to think.
Windhover
For what it is worth I did go and read the judgement and I can’t decide if Keay is gone or OK.
From the ‘Summary as to the proper construction of s 44(i)’ part of the judgement-
“A person who, at the time that he or she nominates for election, retains the
status of subject or citizen of a foreign power will be disqualified by reason of
s 44(i), except where the operation of the foreign law is contrary to the
constitutional imperative that an Australian citizen not be irremediably prevented
by foreign law from participation in representative government. Where it can be
demonstrated that the person has taken all steps that are reasonably required by
the foreign law to renounce his or her citizenship and within his or her power, the
constitutional imperative is engaged.”
The first sentence would imply she is gone but the second sentence still seems to give her a lifeline.
I’m sure eminent legal eagles could give opinions backing both. I know I’ll leave it to the High Court.
Onya Hugo!
ratsak @ #148 Friday, November 10th, 2017 – 7:16 am
I can just see the conga line,
“I wish leave to table documents to prove my right to a position in this Chamber.”
“Is leave granted?”
🙂
Bemused, anything less than full disclosure would be found out quick smart. Journos would pore over it to try an trip someone up.
Looks like Turnbull’s crew has been doing checking and offered up Sharkie as a diversion.
OK the article while interesting is of moderate relevance etc but please play the Paul Robeson snippet.
Never fails to inspire!!!
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48173.htm
bemused says:
Friday, November 10, 2017 at 11:30 am
briefly @ #156 Friday, November 10th, 2017 – 11:17 am
….and bemused, you can dine on your prejudice. It will nourish your capacity for contempt.
No prejudice involved at all.
Would members of a football club be happy to have as the captain of their first grade team a member of another club?
I think not.
It is much the same sort of thing. If you want to be in the Legislature, you can’t hold citizenship of another nation.
While there is provision for renunciation of other citizenships, this is perfectly fair.
The prejudice lies in the presumption that the dual citizen is in the service of the opposing club. This is just false. Dual citizens are not dubious. They are not tributaries of foreign powers. The idea that dual citizens “have something to prove” with respect to their loyalty is in itself highly prejudiced.
Further to the above – it is why they don’t want grandparents included.
I do not believe the flowery ‘invasion of privacy’ excuse.
The libs did not do due diligence and I suspect there are quite a few with conferred by grandparents.
I am of Dutch extraction and my daughter could gain Dutch citizenship (had to apply though) through my mother as long as she was under 18 yrs. (I have dual status because of this but I could do as an adult bc it was through my parents directly.)
Did a few do something similar as children?
As Tanya Plibersek just asked why has John Alexander not resigned or proven he isnota dual citizen?
Whats the hold up.?
jenauthor @ #194 Friday, November 10th, 2017 – 11:47 am
There is a real problem in trying to provide conclusive proof that there is no foreign citizenship or entitlement to same.
As Zoomster has been pointing out, the ALP goes back as far as grandparents. Turnbull is talking only of parents I understand.
Most cases will be simple, but some could get very complex, involving, for example, laws of other countries and how those laws have changed over time. e.g. former Senator Waters.