WHat did i miss ?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
WHat did i miss ?
Why the need for a High Court then if we're just going to rely on a lawyer's legal opinion.The greens and Libs use the same lawyer ?
You do realise the HC is full of lawyersWhy the need for a High Court then if we're just going to rely on a lawyer's legal opinion.
It's not like a lawyer has ever been wrong, have they?
You do realise the HC is full of lawyers
Somebody better tell the Professor then.High Court looked at Bartlett's situation. He's OK.
Might have that wrong.High Court looked at Bartlett's situation. He's OK.
At this point in time why aren't we pushing for a referendum to amend section 44 at the time of the next Federal election?
Two birds with one stone and I am confident a big majority of Australian voters would like to end this farce. I have enjoyed Barnaby Joyce being disqualified but I agree with those that think it's too harsh for someone born in Australia to Australian-born parents to have unknown dual citizenship and fall under s.44.
So is this the new S44 thread ??
Fiona Nash's replacement Hollie Hughes is ineligible
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-...ghes-ineligible-to-replace-fiona-nash/9153638
At this point in time why aren't we pushing for a referendum to amend section 44 at the time of the next Federal election?
Two birds with one stone and I am confident a big majority of Australian voters would like to end this farce. I have enjoyed Barnaby Joyce being disqualified but I agree with those that think it's too harsh for someone born in Australia to Australian-born parents to have unknown dual citizenship and fall under s.44.
I find that decision harsh. What is she supposed to do, not work in a government job on the hope that she gets called up? She met the criteria when the election was understood to be complete, took a job after losing, quit the same job to take up the nomination...
If we can't have a referendum on indigenous recognition, they can f*** off with one that exists solely make politicians' life a little easier.At this point in time why aren't we pushing for a referendum to amend section 44 at the time of the next Federal election?
Two birds with one stone and I am confident a big majority of Australian voters would like to end this farce. I have enjoyed Barnaby Joyce being disqualified but I agree with those that think it's too harsh for someone born in Australia to Australian-born parents to have unknown dual citizenship and fall under s.44.
So.. now that Joyce is outed as a sheep shagger.. are him and Lambie doing it?
I am a little baffled as well. At what stage of an election cycle are you deemed to be clear of any obligations? ie if the vacancy occurred a month before an election the assumption is the seat would hold over until the GE (correct? ) so any employment would be able to be cleared in the appropriate time. That Hughes vacated her appointment within 45 minutes of her eligibility must fall into a similar boatI find that decision harsh. What is she supposed to do, not work in a government job on the hope that she gets called up? She met the criteria when the election was understood to be complete, took a job after losing, quit the same job to take up the nomination...
None of their dual citizenship is Unknown after a 5 minute google search.At this point in time why aren't we pushing for a referendum to amend section 44 at the time of the next Federal election?
Two birds with one stone and I am confident a big majority of Australian voters would like to end this farce. I have enjoyed Barnaby Joyce being disqualified but I agree with those that think it's too harsh for someone born in Australia to Australian-born parents to have unknown dual citizenship and fall under s.44.
I think the argument the court is using is that the election is incomplete as an ineligble person was voted in. Therefore by taking up the job while the election was still open she is ineligible. Of course, what about every other member of parliament as, if the election is still open, all the candidates have an office of profit under the crown (that of being a paid parlimentarian)I am a little baffled as well. At what stage of an election cycle are you deemed to be clear of any obligations? ie if the vacancy occurred a month before an election the assumption is the seat would hold over until the GE (correct? ) so any employment would be able to be cleared in the appropriate time. That Hughes vacated her appointment within 45 minutes of her eligibility must fall into a similar boat
If a person dies do all possible candidates have to resign before that person dies?
That would make the most sense. I still think it's rubbish. There are whole careers that will never be represented in parliament simply because they are highly dependent upon the public sector, a sector that accounts for roughly twenty percent of the nations economy. Instead of bankers and lawyers and union bosses, I'd like to see csiro scientists, public nurses and librarians get the chance to have a crack at representing the people's wishes.I find that decision harsh. What is she supposed to do, not work in a government job on the hope that she gets called up? She met the criteria when the election was understood to be complete, took a job after losing, quit the same job to take up the nomination...