Hey true blue, is it me and you? Citizenship and the Constitution.

[Ice-Wolf]

Gallagher gone and looks like a few more might be too based on this turn of events.

Shorten seems to have been caught with his pants down on this one.

Seriously the ruling is pretty bullshit, it basically means that if an election is called unless you've already had your other citizenship renounced and confirmed before the election was called you have no practical option of nominating for an election that you had no way of knowing when it would be called because there is no way to know if your application will be processed before nominations closed.

Seems like the High Court has determined that the only reasonable step is clairvoyance.

 

[11sjw]

Gallagher gone and looks like a few more might be too based on this turn of events.

Shorten seems to have been caught with his pants down on this one.

Looks like some fallout in WA as well.

I'd love to see the individuals and respective parties be held liable for salaries, entitlements & by-election costs for each incident.

 

[TimmeT]

Seriously the ruling is pretty bullshit, it basically means that if an election is called unless you've already had your other citizenship renounced and confirmed before the election was called you have no practical option of nominating for an election that you had no way of knowing when it would be called because there is no way to know if your application will be processed before nominations closed.

Seems like the High Court has determined that the only reasonable step is clairvoyance.

What it says is that you must have renounced your citizenship prior to the election and that reasonable steps in doing so is ensuring the process is being completed before the election is called and takes place. Thus it is necessary to do this well before the election such as just after one has occurred if you plan to contest.

Reinforces the status that you cannot be knowingly still a dual citizen when contesting. Therefore they have gone with the literal approach when interpreting the constitution in line with the case facts.

 

[CakeEater]

Yippee, more Democracy sausages!

Seriously though, If the Fremantle Mp gets turfed he will just be replaced by another ALP person.

 

[Pessimistic]

Its crazy isnt it. A law (constitutional) which is completely subserviant to other countries vagaries of law. If you are an immediate descendant of a British (born) citizen, why do they need to know if that person was married?

Its not as if they are granting citizenship

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Its crazy isnt it. A law (constitutional) which is completely subserviant to other countries vagaries of law. If you are an immediate descendant of a British (born) citizen, why do they need to know if that person was married?

Its not as if they are granting citizenship

Not only that it is completely dependent on said countries bureaucracies as we have seen that some forms get processed and confirmed much quicker than others, i.e. a few days vs more than a month. Making it impractical for anyone currently holding a foreign citizenship or eligible for one when the PM decided to announce an election to be able to sort out their status before nominations close as there is a fixed time limit, effectively barring them from the political process.

 

[Pessimistic]

Also not sure how a court can rule on a law which said you need to be a British citizen but then get all pernickety about details

The main premise is invalid

 

[Belnakor]

Whatever the solution is, the calls for a referendum to change the constitution has a 0% chance of getting passed imho.

 

[Pessimistic]

Whatever the solution is, the calls for a referendum to change the constitution has a 0% chance of getting passed imho.

Is there a case for saying the various citizenship law changes in advertently changed the constitution? what is the recourse?

After all the original requirement was British Citizenship not Australian which did not exist

 

[Number37]

Seriously the ruling is pretty bullshit, it basically means that if an election is called unless you've already had your other citizenship renounced and confirmed before the election was called you have no practical option of nominating for an election that you had no way of knowing when it would be called because there is no way to know if your application will be processed before nominations closed.

Seems like the High Court has determined that the only reasonable step is clairvoyance.

The HC has always interpreted s.44 strictly. This ruling is no different and I agree with it.
If you are fair dinkum about running for office, renounce all other citizenship, don't wait until you have to.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

The Court held that the Constitution focuses on the process of being chosen, of which nomination is an essential part.

To be honest, I don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone who has lost office over this issue.

If you were born overseas or you have parents born overseas and you wish to run for office in an Australian Parliament, the Court has made it abundantly clear that the onus is on you to ensure that prior to nominating for the office, you effectively renounce all ties to an overseas country.

The Court made it clear that Ms Gallagher obtained her status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent by reason of the British Nationality Act 1948 (her father was born in England and was a British subject). Ms Gallagher then acquired the right of abode in the UK on the commencement of the Immigration Act 1971, and in 1983, Ms Gallagher was reclassified as a British citizen under the British Nationality Act 1981.

The Court identified that Ms Gallagher had the option to expedite the renunciation of her British citizenship, but did not make such an application because she made no enquiry as to whether the option existed.

The Court agreed with the Attorney-General's argument that it is not enough for the candidate to have taken steps to renounce foreign citizenship prior to nomination. Unless there is an "irremediable impediment to effective renunciation", the Court held that a candidate must have divested him/herself of his/her status as a foreign citizen prior to nominating for the Parliament. British law does not make it impossible or not reasonably possible for an individual to renounce British citizenship; since Ms Gallagher was a foreign citizen when she nominated to stand for the ALP in the Senate, she was incapable of being chosen and is therefore ineligible.

 

[Pessimistic]

Mischevious here but might it be quicker with some of these departments to apply for citizenship and get knocked back toot sweet. Immigration depts are pretty unnacountable

 

[Pessimistic]

The Court held that the Constitution focuses on the process of being chosen, of which nomination is an essential part.

To be honest, I don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone who has lost office over this issue.

If you were born overseas or you have parents born overseas and you wish to run for office in an Australian Parliament, the Court has made it abundantly clear that the onus is on you to ensure that prior to nominating for the office, you effectively renounce all ties to an overseas country.

The Court made it clear that Ms Gallagher obtained her status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent by reason of the British Nationality Act 1948 (her father was born in England and was a British subject). Ms Gallagher then acquired the right of abode in the UK on the commencement of the Immigration Act 1971, and in 1983, Ms Gallagher was reclassified as a British citizen under the British Nationality Act 1981.

The Court identified that Ms Gallagher had the option to expedite the renunciation of her British citizenship, but did not make such an application because she made no enquiry as to whether the option existed.

The Court agreed with the Attorney-General's argument that it is not enough for the candidate to have taken steps to renounce foreign citizenship prior to nomination. Unless there is an "irremediable impediment to effective renunciation", the Court held that a candidate must have divested him/herself of his/her status as a foreign citizen prior to nominating for the Parliament. British law does not make it impossible or not reasonably impossible for an individual to renounce British citizenship; since Ms Gallagher was a foreign citizen when she nominated to stand for the ALP in the Senate, she was incapable of being chosen and is therefore ineligible.

Thats really good. Which law or laws changed the requirement to be an Australian Citizen Rather than a British one? When did a British Citizen become a Foreign citizen. Is it explicit or implicit?

British arrivals before 1983 have a vote in Australia without being an Australian citizen

 

[GreyCrow]

You would think any form required for membership at least raise the question of citizenship at that time rather than when you nominate.

Given that 90% of people who nominate are members of their party that would be the right time.

 

[Pessimistic]

You would think any form required for membership at least raise the question of citizenship at that time rather than when you nominate.

Given that 90% of people who nominate are members of their party that would be the right time.

Thats true but these organizations made some not unreasonable assumptions. but now there is a different 'reasonable'

The section also prohibits state pension receivers from being elected. That sucks and disenfranchises an increasing number of people. How do you renounce a pension?

 

[GreyCrow]

Define state pension. How does one qualify

 

[Dixie Flatline]

Justine Keay and Josh Wilson resign following the Court's decision.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

Rebekah Sharkie and Susan Lamb also resign from Parliament.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

Sharkie giving a press conference about her resignation:

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Sharkie giving a press conference about her resignation:

Pyne ain't seriously trying to make that s**t fly is he?

 

[NSWCROW]

 

[NSWCROW]

How about dat timing doe !!!

 

[Pessimistic]

Define state pension. How does one qualify

The whole thing is quite vague but hretis

(iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth; or

 

[Satan]

So does this mean government has a bigger majority in lower house till the by elections?

 

[GreyCrow]

The whole thing is quite vague but hretis

(iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth; or

Thank you. I have to agree it can be vague but I think David Feeney?? I apologise if incorrect, had the Post Office building? Very vague link but it stops the perception of making decisions in your best interests.

I can only imagine an Independent could be the only person that is earning a Pension and decides to run. That then hits that grey area of deciding to run v renouncing.