Changes to pathway to Citizenship

[iliasone]

For those who are interested, a link to the video of the parliament debate on the citizenship act 2017 as of 14-08-2017

http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=362840&action=backFromDownload&operation_mode=parlview&position=16200

 

Edited August 14, 2017 by iliasone

[Roberta2]

7 hours ago, Ken said:

Actually it is. If you born in Australia and both your parents were born in Australia and all four of your grandparents were born in Australia then (and only then) is it safe to assume you are not entitled to any other citizenship and can stand for the Senate. In any other circumstance you need to take some action to renounce your citizenship entitlements before you stand for Senate. Of course Section 44 is ludicrous - not to mention highly undemocratic - but it is simple.

Since Australian citizenship was available only in 1948, a large percentage of our politicians in the past would not have passed this test.   Today the ALP says that all its elected politicians are "safe" because thoroughly vetted.  We shall see.  Certainly Turnbull was very unwise (and arrogant) to insist that the High Court was certain to rule in favour of Joyce.  Not least because not long ago, a gaggle of Ministers came dangerously close to being held in contempt by the High Court, which is (rightly) always jealous of its prerogatives.   I don't think section 44(i) is ludicrous at all.  And it won't be ditched.   Would you want to see Chinese dual nationals sitting in parliament, for example, when we know what a huge effort Beijing is making to exert influence in Australia? Or Russian dual citizens?  Ditto a whole brace of authoritarian corrupt governments around the world - which is probably the majority.

 

[Roberta2]

You might be tempted to think that Section 44 (i) cases have been common.  Not so.  The last one was Skyes vs Cleary in 1992.  A quarter of a century ago.   

Anthony Green:

+The previous case was Sykes v Cleary in 1992. The case disqualified Independent MP for Wills Phil Cleary for holding an “office of profit under the Crown” by Section 44(iv) of the Constitution. This is another archaic part of Section 44, but I won’t delve into its difficulties here.

The Sykes v Cleary judgement also examined the citizenship status of Cleary’s election opponents. The Liberal candidate was born in Switzerland, was a naturalised Australian citizen, but still had Swiss citizenship. The Labor candidate was Greek born and caught in the same trap, a naturalised Australian but still possessing Greek citizenship.

The majority of the High Court ruled that both were disqualified as they had not attempted to rid themselves of their foreign citizenship.

The Court acknowledged that in some cases Australian citizens cannot rid themselves of foreign citizenship.

Rather than let foreign law define whether an Australian citizen can run for Parliament, the High Court adopted a test in Australian law that a candidate must make “all reasonable steps” to rid themselves of other allegiances.

Which is where Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters ran into problems. Neither had taken steps to rid themselves of their citizenship by birth. Both appear to be relatively clear extensions of the Sykes v Cleary ruling.+

 

Comment: time moves on, people forget.  The Labor Party says that all its potential candidates are required to list the birthplaces of not only their parents, but all four grandparents.  It may be that the ALP has had a better institutional memory than the others.  But that remains to be proved.  The government is busily probing the background of a number of ALP MPs.

In Barnaby Joyce's case, the constitutional law expert Anne Twomey says that it could hinge on whether Barnaby Joyce's father was still a Kiwi citizen when Barnaby was born.  It's pretty likely that he was - what reason would he have had to renounce his NZ citizenship? Anyway, as things stand at the moment, the NZ PM has said Joyce is a NZ citizen, and while the government may try to bluster for a few days more. Joyce will have to step down.  Even Bob Katter, the maverick Qld independent backbencher (who has guaranteed no confidence and supply) says so.

[Parley]

20 minutes ago, Roberta2 said:

You might be tempted to think that Section 44 (i) cases have been common.  Not so.  The last one was Skyes vs Cleary in 1992.  A quarter of a century ago.   

Anthony Green:

+The previous case was Sykes v Cleary in 1992. The case disqualified Independent MP for Wills Phil Cleary for holding an “office of profit under the Crown” by Section 44(iv) of the Constitution. This is another archaic part of Section 44, but I won’t delve into its difficulties here.

The Sykes v Cleary judgement also examined the citizenship status of Cleary’s election opponents. The Liberal candidate was born in Switzerland, was a naturalised Australian citizen, but still had Swiss citizenship. The Labor candidate was Greek born and caught in the same trap, a naturalised Australian but still possessing Greek citizenship.

The majority of the High Court ruled that both were disqualified as they had not attempted to rid themselves of their foreign citizenship.

The Court acknowledged that in some cases Australian citizens cannot rid themselves of foreign citizenship.

Rather than let foreign law define whether an Australian citizen can run for Parliament, the High Court adopted a test in Australian law that a candidate must make “all reasonable steps” to rid themselves of other allegiances.

Which is where Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters ran into problems. Neither had taken steps to rid themselves of their citizenship by birth. Both appear to be relatively clear extensions of the Sykes v Cleary ruling.+

 

Comment: time moves on, people forget.  The Labor Party says that all its potential candidates are required to list the birthplaces of not only their parents, but all four grandparents.  It may be that the ALP has had a better institutional memory than the others.  But that remains to be proved.  The government is busily probing the background of a number of ALP MPs.

In Barnaby Joyce's case, the constitutional law expert Anne Twomey says that it could hinge on whether Barnaby Joyce's father was still a Kiwi citizen when Barnaby was born.  It's pretty likely that he was - what reason would he have had to renounce his NZ citizenship? Anyway, as things stand at the moment, the NZ PM has said Joyce is a NZ citizen, and while the government may try to bluster for a few days more. Joyce will have to step down.  Even Bob Katter, the maverick Qld independent backbencher (who has guaranteed no confidence and supply) says so.

What about Jackie Kelly in 1996 ?

[Roberta2]

True, although her case did not go to the High Court as far as I know.  She was disqualified under both 44(iv) because she was a serving member of the RAAF when she nominated, and 44(i) because she had not taken steps to renounce NZ citizenship.  She was a Liberal member.  Only four years after the Skyes vs Cleary case, too.   She was caught under BOTH sections of 44, as in Sykes-Cleary.   Shows the Liberals were very careless at the time, no?  The ALP is generally better at these things because they have better party machinery than the Libs.  We will know very soon how well the Labor machinery has done its job re 44(i).

[Parley]

Really if you are born in another country or one of your parents was then you have no excuse for not being fully compliant.

Anyone with half a brain would check it to the nth degree. 

 

Some of the politicans are joking o TV this morning, what if Kim Jong Un declares that all the members of parliament are North Korean citizens, would they all be forced to resign.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Parley

[jess6]

1 hour ago, Parley said:

Really if you are born in another country or one of your parents was then you have no excuse for not being fully compliant.

Anyone with half a brain would check it to the nth degree. 

 

Some of the politicans are joking o TV this morning, what if Kim Jong Un declares that all the members of parliament are North Korean citizens, would they all be forced to resign.

The lack of a control system suprises me more than the lack of diligence of the candidates and parties.

If the constitution forbids dual citizenship for Australia country representatives, I wonder why anyone is allowed to sit any of the chambers, without providing their - and their parents - birth certificates.

It might be worth introducing a fine - for both candidate and party - if any irregularities is found for not having done their due diligence.

[jess6]

5 hours ago, Roberta2 said:

Today the ALP says that all its elected politicians are "safe" because thoroughly vetted.  We shall see.  Certainly Turnbull was very unwise (and arrogant) to insist that the High Court was certain to rule in favour of Joyce. 

We shall see if the ALP politicians were more diligent indeed.

I found the Prime Minister reaction surprising too - with all due respect. The separation of powers is quite a sensitive topic in any democracy so it feels a bit awkward to see him almost championing for an exception for a member of his own majority.

The concept of mateship actually came to my mind when I was watching the Prime Minister talking. I sometimes feel that the concept of mateship in Australia tends to encourage unconscious bias at the detriment of fairness and diversity.

[Roberta2]

Turnbull is desperate of course because the survival of his government is suddenly at stake.  But it comes especially badly from someone who was once a barrister who has appeared before the High Court himself.  But in trying to rally his own flagging troops, and fend off Abbott the Wrecker, he needs to be careful whose nose he gets up.   Not just on the High Court either, but the House crossbenchers. While all the attention so far re the Turnbull government has focused on the Senate crossbench, governments are made and unmade in the Reps.

[Roberta2]

I am sure that the new Chief Justice of the High Court, Susan Kiefel, the first female Chief Justice, is not a fan of "mateship".  She came up the hard way in Queensland, an especially blokey culture.  Three of Turnbull's ministers have already had to grovel to her High Court because they were facing a credible threat of being held in contempt of court.  But Turnbull seems to have learned nothing from that, so great is his desperation to cling onto his job.   In relation to Joyce, Turnbull is waving around an "opinion" of the Solicitor General, written hastily over the weekend,  which he won't reveal.  The same Solicitor General who replaced the one bullied and harassed out of his job by Senator Brandis.   No doubt Susan Kiefel knows all this and a lot more!

[Parley]

We need Tony Abbott back desperately.

He is a man who stands for something and has real principles unlike the current PM.

[Parley]

It has absolutely nothing to do with mateship.

It is how you interpret the legal clause.

[Roberta2]

2 hours ago, Parley said:

We need Tony Abbott back desperately.

He is a man who stands for something and has real principles unlike the current PM.

Abbott was a complete dud.  Not even he thinks he can become PM again - all he is intent on doing is tearing down Turnbull and exacting revenge - which will make Shorten PM.

[jess6]

2 hours ago, Parley said:

We need Tony Abbott back desperately.

He is a man who stands for something and has real principles unlike the current PM.

Not sure about who should get the job but one sure thing: since I arrived in Australia, the political situation has been a real show.

In 5 years, I have seen 4 Prime Ministers: Gillard, Rudd, Abott and Turnbull.

A little stability would be good.

[jess6]

3 minutes ago, Roberta2 said:

Abbott was a complete dud.  Not even he thinks he can become PM again - all he is intent on doing is tearing down Turnbull and exacting revenge - which will make Shorten PM.

I tend to agree with this however I feel Shorten may struggle because he seems to lack charisma and public speaking skills.

[Roberta2]

Just now, jess6 said:

Not sure about who should get the job but one sure thing: since I arrived in Australia, the political situation has been a real show.

In 5 years, I have seen 4 Prime Ministers: Gillard, Rudd, Abott and Turnbull.

A little stability would be good.

Agree. A long line of duds.  We had Rudd twice of course. But this has not been the norm in Australian politics to have such instability.  To the contrary, the Menzies postwar government was in power from 1949 to 1972.  Howard had eleven years, from 1996 to 2007.   We have also had some spectacular policy failures over the last decade, notably in energy policy.  It's probably true that governing has become a lot harder as the consequences of the GFC still work themselves out, and populists come out of the woodwork everywhere.  Still, nothing quite as disastrous here as Brexit or Trump. 

[Parley]

Turnbull has destroyed the Liberal party almost.

But Abbott will be back to pick up the pieces soon.

I have a feeling Malcolm will be gone by the end of the year but if he survives to the election, Topny will be back as opposition leader.

[Roberta2]

26 minutes ago, jess6 said:

I tend to agree with this however I feel Shorten may struggle because he seems to lack charisma and public speaking skills.

Shorten does lack charisma, which people either have or they don't. He seems to be working on his speaking skills.  But both the Liberals and the Greens are falling apart, and Labor has had a big lesson in the recent past about the perils of disunity.

[Roberta2]

+The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tony Smith, has signalled he will not use his casting vote to hand the Turnbull government a majority on legislation if the government fails to command a working majority on the floor.

In an interview with the Guardian’s Australian Politics Live podcast, Smith says he would apply the same principle – don’t manufacture a majority that isn’t there – if there was ever a no-confidence motion moved against the government.+  The Guardian 5 May 2017.

Comment: I had forgotten this.  No doubt, the politicians on both sides have not.   Helps explain further the desperation on Turnbull's part, as evidenced in Question Time today, with the absurd comments about the ALP colluding with a "foreign power" in order to verify Joyce's NZ citizenship.   As Chris Ulmann said, most Australians do not think of NZ as either foreign or a power.

(The role of the Speaker in the Australian House of Reps is slightly different from that in the House of Commons.  For example, he or she still represents a constituency.)

[seeker]

Has the Senate committee review report come out? Below link has info reg that  

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/08/17/senate-committee-recommends-abandoning-turnbull-governments-citizenship-changes

 

[Ken]

On ‎15‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 17:34, Roberta2 said:

(The role of the Speaker in the Australian House of Reps is slightly different from that in the House of Commons.  For example, he or she still represents a constituency.)

While there are obviously going to be differences since they both represent constituencies that's not going to be one of them.

[Felix123]

Citizenship crisis: Bombshell crossbench decision leaves survival of the Turnbull government in doubt

Maybe if Malcolm's Peter Dutton had left the topic of citizenship alone and not tried to close the door to so many his government wouldn't be in the pickle it's in today. What a mess!

[wombatinabox]

6 minutes ago, Felix123 said:

Citizenship crisis: Bombshell crossbench decision leaves survival of the Turnbull government in doubt

Maybe if Malcolm's Peter Dutton had left the topic of citizenship alone and not tried to close the door to so many his government wouldn't be in the pickle it's in today. What a mess!

Karma..

[Roberta2]

On 8/19/2017 at 00:17, Ken said:

While there are obviously going to be differences since they both represent constituencies that's not going to be one of them.

John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, has represented his constituency in Buckinghamshire since 2009.  By Westminster convention, he has not been opposed in elections since that time, and many of his constituents - not without justification - complain they are not being represented.   If your representative in parliament knows that he is  safe as long as his party remains in power,  how much effort is he going to put in for his constituents?   In contrast, the Speaker of the House of Representatives does not have that luxury, so still has to count on the fact that he will be opposed in the next federal election and so could be turfed out.  

[08SEP]

Hi Guys, 

Can someone please update me on what's happening in regards to the new citzenship requirements. Are these actually in place and definite? or is there still a chance that this may not pass? 

Thanks!