Dual Nationality and SSM

[old man emu]

In the light of the Dual Nationality kerfuffle that's rocking Federal Parliament at the monent, I wonder how many members of the 2004 Howard Government were sitting illegally when they altered the Marriage Act by inserting the words "a man and a woman".

 

The thing is that the Dual Nationality card cannot be played in the SSM game as the Constitution says, approximately, that you cannot be voted into a seat in the Parliament being selected at a current election if you don't meet the serveral criteria, Nationality being one.

 

A parliament only exists from one election to its dissolution in readiness for the next election. It is like a car insurance policy, it has a start date and fixed end date. If you want to continue the policy with the same company after the end date, then you elect to renew it. Each parlimentarian actually only has a fairly certain 4 years to hold the position. They can be turfed out at the next election, wioth no come back on unfair dismissal. The same old hacks just keep coming back because the citizens of Australia are hoodwinked into believing that sending an old hack to the knackery isn't cricket.

 

Old Man Emu

 

 

[Marty_d]

I don't think it would have mattered if a dozen MP's were dropped when Howard inserted the "man and a woman" thing, because Labor supported the change too.

 

Although I think S44 is well and truly out of date for this time, it does amuse me that the black-letter judges the LNP wanted in the Supreme Court turned out to be, well, black-letter in this case. Almost karmic.

 

Now Turnbull is flailing around trying to deal with headaches like Stephen Parry's surprise citizenship troubles (well a surprise to Turnbull, not surprising to other senior LNP figures who knew for months) - and the implications from the fact that the whole affair was kept from him.

 

While I understand the Labor party sitting back with arms folded and a grin on their dial while this all happens, I think it's a mistake. They have an opportunity to steal from the Green's playbook, call for an audit and appear to be the party that's listening to the public and cleaning house. Obviously there may be a couple of surprises in it for them, which is why they're resisting an audit, but if their vetting process is as good as they say it is, the audit is likely to do more damage to the LNP.

 

 

[Bruce]

I think it reflects badly on the labor party.

 

While I don't like Barnaby Joyce, the fact is that this is an unfair attack. They could have been more statesmanlike and got my sympathy, but they didn't.

 

 

[Marty_d]

I think it reflects badly on the labor party.While I don't like Barnaby Joyce, the fact is that this is an unfair attack. They could have been more statesmanlike and got my sympathy, but they didn't.

Like the LNP would have been were the situation reversed??

 

I remember one Tony Abbott as leader of the opposition almost daily calling Julia Gillard's government a "shambles", or "shambolic", or whatever epithet appealed to him that morning. We haven't had statesmanlike government since Hawke.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Labor politicians Justine Keay, Susan Lamb, Maria Vamvakinou, Tony Zappia, Penny Wong, David Feeney and Tania Plibersek are all under question. They claim to have rescinded foreign citizenship, some who nominated before getting confirmation, and none have provided documentation.

Well, let's have the audit and find out. They were baying for Shorten to provide his proof too, and he eventually did.

 

 

[Bruce]

Alas you are right Marty and the LNP are no better. How much is the whole thing costing I wonder, eg the court costs and the by-election costs for Barnaby. After he wins the by-election, what has been achieved except for wasting millions?

 

If I were running the LNP, I would try to establish how only the LNP cared a hoot about taxpayers money being wasted, and that was the difference with them and the ALP. But I don't think they are this smart.

 

 

[old man emu]

Legally being allowed by Australian Law to exercise two rights - holding dual citizenship and the right to sit in Federal Parliament - is another example of the Legislative left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

 

Dual citizenship

 

Can you become a dual citizen?

 

Australia allows its citizens to hold dual nationality. Other countries may not. To check if your country allows its citizens to hold dual or multiple citizenships, contact the embassy or consulate of that country in Australia.

 

The Australia Act 1986 (Cth)

 

The Australia Act (Cth and UK) eliminated the remaining possibilities for the UK to legislate with effect in Australia, for the UK to be involved in Australian government, and for an appeal from any Australian court to a British court.[1]

 

The High Court in Sue v Hill in 1999[23] did not rely upon the long title or the preamble, which conventionally do not have force of law. But it decided that the effect of the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) was that, at least from the date when the Act came into operation, Britain had become a "foreign power" within the meaning of Constitution section 44(i), so that a parliamentary candidate who had British nationality was ineligible to be a member of the Commonwealth Parliament.

 

Sue v Hill was an Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 23 June 1999. It concerned a dispute over the apparent return of a candidate, Heather Hill, to the Australian Senate in the 1998 federal election. The result was challenged on the basis that Hill was a dual citizen of the United Kingdom and Australia, and that section 44(i) of the Constitution of Australia prevents any person who is the citizen of a "foreign power" from being elected to the Parliament of Australia. The High Court found that, at least for the purposes of section 44(i), the United Kingdom is a foreign power to Australia.

 

Section 44 of the Constitution states as one of five inhibitors to holding a Federal seat

 

44. Any person who -

 

(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power

 

The Australian Electoral Commission reproduces the section in its Candidates Handbook, where it draws particular attention to s 44(i)

 

 

[facthunter]

Dual citizenship is OK if you are just a resident I suppose. To be a participant in the actual government of the Country is another matter. A referendum on that issue will never be a runner with the populace, so suggesting it is a measure of political disconnect. Bananabro knew he was a goner. Don't forget the panel of judges were UNANIMOUS in their decision. Labor did have a more effective CHECK at the preselection level and suggesting there are numerous labor people under a cloud is just MSM Rupert talk meant to muddy the waters. Don't forget Trump ran the "birther" lies about Obama not being an American Citizen forever even though he proved other wise constantly and Trump admitted it was false but it did a job for a long time.

 

Turnbull is in deep $#!t and Shorten doesn't need to help him out especially when Turnbull BAGS him at every opportunity, unless he (Shorten) gives unqualified support for what HE shoves in front of him, without any alteration. The LAW applied equally to all parties, so it's essentially fair. Ignorance of a law has never been an excuse for breaking it. Nev

 

 

[storchy neil]

Nev I said that ignorance is no excuse ages back got caned for such a statement neil

 

 

[octave]

sigh. this subject really winds me up.

 

Firstly I fully agree that that law needs to be followed as it stands and that is just bad luck or bad management on the part of those pollies on ALL sides that have fallen. that being said it is a monumentally ridiculous section of the constitution and it should be changed ASAP.

 

I was listening to pollies on the radio talking about a certain politician whose grandparents may have been (shock horror) born in another country.

 

It is clearly xenophobic nonsense that I, having been born in Britain and arriving here before I was 2 and having chosen to not return there even for a holiday would be less qualified to run for parliament. My son who was born in Australia, I suspect he would not even realize he had any British entitlement (although he now lives in NZ ), yet without some kind of paperwork other than his Australian birth certificate would be considered unfit to serve in an elected position in a Federal (but as I understand it but not an in a state parliament).

 

The notion that Marrisa Waters would be compelled to favour Canada over Australia simply because she happened to pop out of here mothers uterus whilst her parents were briefly living in Canada or that Barnaby. and as much as I hate to defend him has ever or would ever favour NZ over Aus is xenophobic and little more than superstition. I am thrilled that Malcolm Roberts has gone but not because a parent was born in a nasty foreign place.

 

I have dual citizenship, although I have only realized this recently (due to this trivial nonsense) and I don't feel that there is any rational, intelligent or practical reason to believe that I would do anything to disadvantage the country I have chosen to live my life over the country that I happened to be born in.

 

When I joined the RAAF in 1979 I swore an affirmation to serve the Queen of Australia and the government and people of Australia. Sorry but in my opinion section 44 is from a bygone age and does need to be amended to reflect the fact that a huge percentage of the Australian population are considered unfit to stand for election, in some cases not because of who they are but who there grandparents are.

 

 

[old man emu]

Here's the guff 'n' stuff on why Section 44 is worded as it is

 

If only we'd listened to this guy, we might've avoided this citizenship mess

 

 

[kgwilson]

Where are all the Australians???

Most of them have had to resign because they are dual citizens!!

 

 

[facthunter]

We are nearly ALL foreigners. She wasn't the worst person in the NSW parliament by a long shot.. Nev

 

 

[storchy neil]

No but she ties for second and third neil

 

 

[facthunter]

Did you learn that from the Terrorgraph? Nev

 

 

[storchy neil]

No neil

 

 

[facthunter]

Where's he gone? Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

So... only "true" Australians to apply... guess that just leaves our indigenous brothers and sisters to populate the parliament. My Dad was born in Sri Lanka but I consider myself a true Aussie. How many generations does it take before parliamentarians are palatable?

 

 

[coljones]

So... only "true" Australians to apply... guess that just leaves our indigenous brothers and sisters to populate the parliament. My Dad was born in Sri Lanka but I consider myself a true Aussie. How many generations does it take before parliamentarians are palatable?

All you have to do is ensure that you are an Australian citizen and renounce any other citizenships or allegiences. Not rocket science.

 

 

[Marty_d]

All you have to do is ensure that you are an Australian citizen and renounce any other citizenships or allegiences. Not rocket science.

I agree with that, I was responding to Peter's post below. Kenneally is an Australian citizen and has renounced her US citizenship, but somehow she's not an "Australian".

 

Today's latest - Kristina Keneally leaving Sky News to run against John Alexander in Bennelong. Do we need another recycled foreigner in our parliament, even if she has posted a certificate showing she renounced her US citizenship in 2002? Her record in the NSW parliament wasn't all that flash. Where are all the Australians???

[kgwilson]

She's an Australian who is an American who is not an American citizen but an Australian citizen. Simple. Listen to her & she is an American, but luckily not one with a whiny nasal voice. Confused? You are not alone.

 

 

[coljones]

She's an Australian who is an American who is not an American citizen but an Australian citizen. Simple. Listen to her & she is an American, but luckily not one with a whiny nasal voice. Confused? You are not alone.

Leave Michaela Cash out of this!!!

 

 

[old man emu]

How many generations does it take before parliamentarians are palatable?

While ever a society has a system of any sort that allows a small group to make rules for the operation of the society, those members of the small group will be unpalatable to a proportion of the larger group, no matter if the members of the small group are benign or malignant. This is especially so if the members of the larger group have lost their personal acquaintance with all of the rest of the group.

 

In other words, the rule makers were more palatable when we lived our lives in small village societies, and they became more and more unpalatable when we became urbanised, or the area of control of the rule makers extended beyond the daily sphere of the larger group.

 

In reply to Marty_d's question, I ask another - How many generations will Mankind produce before it goes extinct?

 

OME

 

 

[facthunter]

I think regardless of who you are, entitlement to privileges from a country other than Australia is meant to be the target of the legislation. Most people in this country wouldn't disagree with that. Multiple citizenship is automatically ruled out , IF YOU wish to be in the FEDERAL Parliament.. Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

61.6%!

 

There's hope for this country yet.

 

Congratulations to any same sex couples out there who've been waiting for the same rights as the rest of us!

 

Now comes Turnbull's final challenge - to get Dean Smith's bill, without all the ridiculous amendments the conservatives want, through the parliament before xmas. You'd think it wouldn't be too hard, given that more than half of his party and all of Labor and the Greens would support it. If he can't even do this then he's definitely a lame duck.