greens are

[Bruce]

Apparently at some time in the past, lawyers got paid by the word and that is how the particular form of writing came about. I also suspect that by avoiding plain and blunt language, they give themselves some wiggle room for future changes

 

 

[Bruce]

Yep Marty, we were responding at the same time there

 

 

[willedoo]

I am no lawyer, let alone constitutional lawyer.. However, the wording of the act wouldn't make a direct reference to he constitution, but something to the effect that an official form renouncement to the Aus Foreign Office, who would be bound by duty to deliver to the relevant countries consular services in Australia or, in the absence, through foreign envoy representation to that country (e.g. Wards, DHL, FedEx, etc), and where that person does not avail themselves of any benefits conferred to them of the said foreign power, shall, until as such time that they can be objectively deemed to be exercising such benefits of the foreign power, have considered to rescind their citizenship or rights thereof of the said foreign power until such time that they are observed to assert or receive such rights, ispo facto, ceterus paribus, caveat emptor and inter alia....(Latin added for effect).

Jerry, I think Marty's right. The act probably would have no weight in the High Court without a constitutional amendment to make those renouncement procedures applicable. It would require a referendum in my opinion.

 

Cheers, Willie.

 

 

[Yenn]

The way I see it is that the only way for common sense to prevail is for the constitution to be amended, which would involve a referendum. Or possibly the high court could rule on the constitutions meaning.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Do you think the public are prepared to shell out for a referendum, just to update part of the constitution which, if every politician did their due diligence prior to standing for office, wouldn't be an issue anyway?

 

I agree that it's out of date in today's world - just don't think it's a priority.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Unfortunately, Marty, it does matter. We can't go in saying , " oh we all agree that's a silly law. Let's all just ignore it".

 

Neil pointed out that there is a significant condition to be fulfilled before taking up office. It has become obvious that it is not a simple matter to determine actual citizenship, nor simple to cancel other citizenship without permission from the other nation.

 

The only thing proven so far is that two greens are the only politicians that had the integrity to step down immediately they became aware that they had broken this rule.

 

If the law is illogical, it must be changed, and until changed it must be adhered to.

 

Maybe there should be a plebesite to determine whether to change the law or just ignore it!

 

 

[hihosland]

Nomadpete did say "Maybe there should be a plebesite to determine whether to change the law or just ignore it!"

 

Which is a very dangerous idea to express because considering their actions and inactions to date the pollies just might go ahead and hold a plebesite to hold a plebesite

 

Puts a whole new twist to the "going postal" expression

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Jerry, I think Marty's right. The act probably would have no weight in the High Court without a constitutional amendment to make those renouncement procedures applicable. It would require a referendum in my opinion.

Cheers, Willie.

I am not so sure.. the constitution says you cannot hold citizenship or rights thereof (my paraphrase) of a foreign power. What it doesn't say is how to measure rights thereof and one of the problems is that Australia has no jurisdiction over foreign powers, so even if a citizen of a foreign power were to go through the bureaucratic hoops of the foreign power to renounce/rescind their citizenship - that foreign power may say, "Thanks, but we need tax equivalence top ups at the moment - so you're still with us, Sam"... or words to that effect. All such an act would do, is under Australian law, provide form and function to determine for all intents and purposes, a person has rescinded their foreign citizenship (probably need to be qualified in terms of some international convention/law of citizenship renouncement). It does not change the requirement under the constitution nor does it change the meaning - it clarifies what procedure would be required where a foreign power for some reason or another doesn't play ball in a positive renouncement of their citizenship. And this wouldn't change the constitution at all... but doesn't allow foreign powers through belligerence or antagonism to exert constitutional influence over Australian subjects (could this also be a reason why John Howard allowed Aussie Citizens to be dual citizens - too hard to police otherwise?)

 

It would also cover the hypothetical situation where some "grateful" foreign power automatically confers citizenship rights to all Australians as we liberated them or something. Then what would we do - dissolve parliament and descend into Anarchy (or Summon Lizzy back to rule with her iron fist?). I suppose there is a benefit to every illogical law ;-)

 

FWIW, the pollies should probably convene a committee of eminent constitutional lawyers, international lawyers and other interested parties to review the constitution for other potential anomalies/outdated provisions and propose a series of amendments as a package to go to a referendum, where we can tick the ones we like and those that get through are reflected in the constitution..

 

I suppose an advantage of the UK - where there is NO constitution (there is a body of admin law, but when it starts with the premise parliament is supreme, well, that is the constitution), outdated laws can be changed relatively easily - but in reality, they aren't!

 

 

[Marty_d]

Unfortunately, Marty, it does matter. We can't go in saying , " oh we all agree that's a silly law. Let's all just ignore it".

I'm not saying it doesn't matter - just that after recent shenanigans like this $122 million postal vote, the public probably won't see a full (what, $250 million? $500 million?) referendum that deals with pollies inability to sort their genealogy as being a good use of the public coin.

 

I may be wrong about that, of course.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"Unfortunately, Marty, it does matter. We can't go in saying , " oh we all agree that's a silly law. Let's all just ignore it".

 

In New Zealand the Priminister Muldoon. told all employers to stop paying superannuation funds, as he will change the law later, which he did, then the pollies had a good holiday on that money. so we can ignore the law if the top pollie says so.

 

A bit like the law that say's " you cannot induce under age females for sex" unless your J Howard & give 14 yo,s $3000 to get pregnant!.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Bryon]

FWIW, the pollies should probably convene a committee of eminent constitutional lawyers, international lawyers and other interested parties to review the constitution for other potential anomalies/outdated provisions and propose a series of amendments as a package to go to a referendum, where we can tick the ones we like and those that get through are reflected in the constitution..

Now that would be a dogs breakfast if I ever saw one

 

They would be too busy trying to convince everyone that their interpretation of the law is correct, that they would never get around to drafting new laws

 

 

[Bruce]

Getting back to criticizing the greens... I was amazed to read how the welfare card ( not valid for drugs and alcohol) has been tried in test areas with wonderful success but its further use is opposed by the greens. And the greens are supported in a lukewarm way by labor.

 

Wow are they showing their hatred of aborigines and unemployed and they want to do them harm or what?

 

 

[storchy neil]

Now steady on there Bruce don't you relise that the greens and labour have a hidden agenda there

 

They the greens / labour and the do dooders not protecting the children and women from the drunks drug taking idiots

 

Why ? Neil

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Getting back to criticizing the greens... I was amazed to read how the welfare card ( not valid for drugs and alcohol) has been tried in test areas with wonderful success but its further use is opposed by the greens. And the greens are supported in a lukewarm way by labor.Wow are they showing their hatred of aborigines and unemployed and they want to do them harm or what?

Bruce I don't have the answer, but there is a little more to this issue than you might have been told. How was the "wonderful success" of the trial measured? Over what time frame?

 

Cutting cash available for booze might work in the short term, but junkies and alcoholics always find a way around the rules. What is being done to address the root cause of the problem?

 

One report suggests there needs to be a regional approach, with lots of backup services.

 

Mixed reception for cashless welfare card

 

Some people are agast that after two centuries of campaigning for equality and freedom, indigenous communities are back under the paternalisitic yoke of white bureaucrats in Canberra.

 

No to the Cashless Card

 

 

[facthunter]

The Liquor industry doesn't want grog sales restricted in any way, and have worked hard in the NT to make their desired outcome be achieved. Nev

 

 

[Bruce]

The success was measured by the fewer deaths and less child neglect in the areas tested, Ceduna was cited.

 

Among aborigines, the matriarchs are the ones who should be listened to.. It was great to see these matriarchs stymie some city bleeding hearts who were opposed to the card test. ( this was at Indulkina, but it could have been anywhere)

 

But it should never be an aborigine thing, there are plenty of whites who need it just as much.

 

The only sensible argument is that there may be more crime as the drug addicts seek to fund their problem. But I have not heard this argument as being the main objection and it doesn't stand up to critical adding-up of moneys.

 

 

[spacesailor]

How about "Alcohol-free beer", we had a "whiskey" for a long time, (forgotten the name), but after-all the problem isn't the booze, it's the alcohol in it !

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I think that's a claytons idea

 

 

[facthunter]

Alcohol free beer is like dehydrated rain. Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

But it will wet your throat, when the "dust-devils" get you, If your in a "dry-area" a Clayton would be a great drink. Unless you like "corporation-tapalean" LoL.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

Just water will do it for me. Have plenty with you, in case you land somewhere you haven't planned in the middle of the day, without shade. Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

Water without the poison's would be OK, but the weight of the correct amount (ration) would be more than I could carry. LoL

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I carry two 600mm bottles as part of my emergency gear. Included in the W&B.

 

I used to also carry a 100mm bottle of Black Label JW, but it evaporated.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"I carry two 600mm bottles"

 

the minimum is two litres per person per day!. So for a two day emergency "park" a yank gallon will suffice.

 

An extra four litres of fuel could save the day, and no regulation about water reserves.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

Two 600 MM bottles won't keep you alive for long at midday and no shade. If you are going to fly inland with such low amounts fly alongside roads where you will get more assistance. A very experienced inland pilot/operator commented to me a few weeks ago that low amounts of water were being carried by people in Jabiru's crossing the continent. Perhaps a timely reminder. You can go for days without food but only hours without water in the desert, in the heat of the day. Nev