Australian Government on Brink of Collapse

[Costa Fierro]

The Australian constitution states that New Zealand is a state of Australia, from the perspective of the constitution a New Zealand citizenship cannot exist.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/ ... 30/s6.html

It's not a state of Australia. It can be if it wanted to, and it did actually participate during the talks before Australia became a federation. However, we didn't become a state, because when the talks began New Zealand had just finished a lengthy conflict with various iwi over land rights and was subsequently making amends by granting them voting rights and even their own legislature.

In short, New Zealand didn't become a state of Australia because our own government was scared shitless that if it did, Maori would rise up again, and they did not have the means to put down another rebellion.

[Forsher]

1: Not necessarily, if my taxes don't already pay for the park that might be the case (but by that logic, would you consider public parks funded by taxes a restriction on freedom). Either way, it's clearly not a restriction on freedom that unjustly imposes terms on foreign-born Australians that prevents them serving in Parliament, since many have done and continue to do so lawfully.

The law is neither here nor there when it comes to restrictions on freedoms. Well, it is, but the concept is clearly far more grand.

The point is that one's agency is arbitrarily limited by having to make irrational tradeoffs.

2: But the section is pretty unambiguous about 'foreign' countries. Whether there is a strong cultural connection is not really relevant in that regard. The fact is, legally speaking, Australia and New Zealand are two different nations,

If you're suggesting that different legal jurisdiction is sufficient a standard for foreign country, you live in a very different world to the one I inhabit. It matters enormously to the intent of the law how they perceived foreign. It has absolutely nothing to do with cultural similarity and everything to do with the relationship of colony and metropole. These are not the same thing, like, at all. (Except when they are.)

3: This objection is pure gibberish. What does technocracy have to do with it? I merely said it's pretty ridiculous too have such a loose interpretation of the law that we presume the reading comprehension skills of Parliamentarians to be the equivalent of ten-year olds. Its not THAT hard too read a legal document that specifically asks you too check the info you provide is correct before you sign it, if you are unsure, then the onus is on you too check. Plenty of others have had to do so, and done so, Joyce did not.

Checking.

Hmm, funny that. You're willing to accept the idea that citizenship/immigration law can be technical, but cannot imagine how this complexity is relevant to checking?

You can argue semantics about it all you like, but it would be a fairly grave breach of the rule of law if Joyce were treated differently than others in the same situation as he only relatively recently because he has a higher position than they do. I would think that would be a greater unfairness than the one you presently propose, plenty of Parliamentarians have done the right thing on this question.

They resigned. The law did not decide that. If they are facing legal consequences they shouldn't face them, and nor should Joyce. They should not have been placed in a position where they thought resigning was a good idea.

And, by the way, the law is extremely ambiguous in terms of plain English. In terms of the text alone, it is not clear whether the law refers to Australian conceptions of what the citizen is, or the conceptions of citizen held by other salient nations. This is enormously important. For instance, in NZ, voting is not a citizen's rights, whereas in many countries with antique views of suffrage, it is. If you're to hold that it means Australia's conception, then any country with more cosmopolitan laws could leave people with entitlements that in Australia are only available to citizens, thus one falls afoul of the law. And if it is the foreign country's? Well, then you have a similar problem. The resolution requires a much more complex reading than just what you quoted, or going beyond the text to investigate the rationale of the law. At which point we return to the question of the law's justness, and whether or not capriciousness is an acceptable principle in law (as you point out, it's rather not really consistent with the rule of law).

Or, put another way, there is no way a non-technical person could actually understand what that law is sufficiently to be able to check it, if every politician in Joyce's situation resigned before any clarity was reached. I am reminded of my limited understanding of the Scopes Monkey Trial.

[SD_Film Artists]

What is the problem about being a dual citizen with … New Zealand?

New Zealand is a known rogue state, attempting to use its hobbits and superior rugby practices to subvert Australia. They even parody its flag. *nods*

[Dazchan]

Oh look. There's another one. www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/politic ... xysrc.html

Perhaps the Nationals should change their name to the Dual Nationals

[Coconut Isle]

Re: above discussion, the Constitution is very clear, at the time of nomination, one cannot be a dual citizen (unless they have undertaken reasonable steps to renounce the citizenship at the time of the nomination). And yes, NZ, UK, etc. are all considered foreign powers within the meaning of s44 of the Constitution (see Sue v Hill on wikipedia).

[Cedoria]

Re: above discussion, the Constitution is very clear, at the time of nomination, one cannot be a dual citizen (unless they have undertaken reasonable steps to renounce the citizenship at the time of the nomination). And yes, NZ, UK, etc. are all considered foreign powers within the meaning of s44 of the Constitution (see Sue v Hill on wikipedia).

Pretty much this. Turnbull did himself no favours when he practically ordered the High Court not too find Joyce in violation of s44. Now coming too that decision will lead to accusations that they were under political pressure. It's the stupidest thing he could've said at the time.

Since Turnbull's normally pretty careful about that sort of thing, I think panic has started to set in, that or he's got a set of new, exceedingly stupid advisors.

[Angora Guanaco]

As an Aussie, i laughed for about 2 mins straight after hearing about Barnaby (i guess it helps i'm left wing). But seriously, i don't think they'll lose government because of this even if Barnaby has to resign. They'll just ally with Xenophon or Hanson or somebody.

[Cedoria]

As an Aussie, i laughed for about 2 mins straight after hearing about Barnaby (i guess it helps i'm left wing). But seriously, i don't think they'll lose government because of this even if Barnaby has to resign. They'll just ally with Xenophon or Hanson or somebody.

Hanson won't help them, she's in the Senate and so is Xenophon. The issue is going too be with their lower house majority (which if Nash, Joyce or anyone else goes they will no longer hold)...

I must say, I don't like Turnbull's Government, but I didn't anticipate it's members could be that stupid (even the National Party struck me as not that foolish). It's really an eye-opener that they fall afoul of a section that's existed for 116 years and they had too sign paperwork swearing that they had dealt with (or at least taken all reasonable steps too do) when they entered Parliament.

[Forsher]

As an Aussie, i laughed for about 2 mins straight after hearing about Barnaby (i guess it helps i'm left wing). But seriously, i don't think they'll lose government because of this even if Barnaby has to resign. They'll just ally with Xenophon or Hanson or somebody.

Hanson won't help them, she's in the Senate and so is Xenophon. The issue is going too be with their lower house majority (which if Nash, Joyce or anyone else goes they will no longer hold)...

I must say, I don't like Turnbull's Government, but I didn't anticipate it's members could be that stupid (even the National Party struck me as not that foolish). It's really an eye-opener that they fall afoul of a section that's existed for 116 years and they had too sign paperwork swearing that they had dealt with (or at least taken all reasonable steps too do) when they entered Parliament.

Please, tell me how it is clear that Fiona Nash is a dual citizen.

[West Phoenicia]

As an Aussie, i laughed for about 2 mins straight after hearing about Barnaby (i guess it helps i'm left wing). But seriously, i don't think they'll lose government because of this even if Barnaby has to resign. They'll just ally with Xenophon or Hanson or somebody.

Even funnier those bat crazy Greens losing 2 and they only have 9 senators. With less people to fact check who would have thought not 1 but 2 of there co deputy leaders were involved in the same issue.

And Pauline is in the senate so she is no help. Even if she was in the right house shes too busy trying on. burkas. Lmao

Fiona Nash has come out and said she is a dual citizen.

[New Rogernomics]

Bloomberg weighed into the debate, with an interesting article: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... nal-crisis
"[...]Legislatures worldwide would thus do well to abandon their allegiance to the old citizenship principles of jus sanguinis and jus soli -- the right of blood and the right of soil. Candidates' fitness for office ought to be measured by their actions, rather than the details of their birth. Voters, not bureaucrats in other countries, should be the ones to decide whether those candidates' loyalty to their country is sufficient to elect them to office."

[Cedoria]

Hanson won't help them, she's in the Senate and so is Xenophon. The issue is going too be with their lower house majority (which if Nash, Joyce or anyone else goes they will no longer hold)...

I must say, I don't like Turnbull's Government, but I didn't anticipate it's members could be that stupid (even the National Party struck me as not that foolish). It's really an eye-opener that they fall afoul of a section that's existed for 116 years and they had too sign paperwork swearing that they had dealt with (or at least taken all reasonable steps too do) when they entered Parliament.

Please, tell me how it is clear that Fiona Nash is a dual citizen.

She has said so as the link somebody else provided above shows...

[Cedoria]

Bloomberg weighed into the debate, with an interesting article: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... nal-crisis
"[...]Candidates' fitness for office ought to be measured by their actions, rather than the details of their birth. Voters, not bureaucrats in other countries, should be the ones to decide whether those candidates' loyalty to their country is sufficient to elect them to office."

I'd agree, but unfortunately the Constitution at present does not. And I have a sneaking suspicion that changing it would not be as easy as some seem to think. Voters generally like to stick it too politicians, not help them out of messes.


I have had another thought about how it could be resolved, but It's only a theory and I think you'd have too be mad too try it.

Since the Australian Constitution is technically an Act of Westminster Parliament, and the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty still holds firm in Britain, in theory that would mean that the British Parliament could still change our Constitution by legislation... (good reason for a Republic right there).

The only real impediment to that would be the Australia Acts, and I'm not 100% sure that it would work, but if somebody got desperate enough and didn't want too hold a referendum...

What do you think, would anybody try such a ploy? Should Turnbull? Do you think it would work?

I have a sneaking suspicion the Australia Acts would prevent it, and I think anybody who tried it would be thrown out by offended voters (not too mention the dangers inherent in this method, because if you can get the British Parliament to change our Constitution for you, the other side can do it too).


Just an interesting factor to consider, although I doubt it's something that will be seriously pursued, imminent fall of the government or not.

[New Rogernomics]

What is the problem about being a dual citizen with … New Zealand?

New Zealand is a known rogue state, attempting to use its hobbits and superior rugby practices to subvert Australia. They even parody its flag. *nods*

We also promote the gay agenda, legal prostitution, and the she-male aka Helen Clark. We eventually plan to make Australia into a eco-friendly penal colony by 2070. Oh wait...

[Forsher]

Please, tell me how it is clear that Fiona Nash is a dual citizen.

She has said so as the link somebody else provided above shows...

Yeah, that doesn't mean determining that is simple.

[Cedoria]

She has said so as the link somebody else provided above shows...

Yeah, that doesn't mean determining that is simple.

She IS a Scottish citizen. The question is not whether the Court determines that is true, it IS true.

The question is whether the Court finds their is sufficient ambiguity in that clause of the Constitution too warrant NOT following the current interpretation of it. Given how unambiguous the section is, I find it difficult to see how they could, but the High Court will make it's judgement either way. Until then we really don't have much of an idea on what comes next.

[Bears Armed]

She IS a Scottish citizen. The question is not whether the Court determines that is true, it IS true.

Except that -- whatever the SNP might hope -- there is no such thing as "a Scottish citizen"... any more than there's "an English citizen", "a Welsh citizen", or "a Northern Ireland" citizen.

[Ariddia]

Since the Australian Constitution is technically an Act of Westminster Parliament, and the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty still holds firm in Britain, in theory that would mean that the British Parliament could still change our Constitution by legislation... (good reason for a Republic right there).

I'm reasonably sure that's not true. For two reasons. First, section 128 of the Australian Constitution itself provides that the Constitution can only be amended by the following process: the amendment must be approved by an absolute majority of members of both houses of the federal Parliament and by a majority of voters in a majority of the states, and by an overall majority of voters in the country as a whole. The Constitution provides no other means for its own amendment. It does not recognise a power for the British Parliament to amend it.

Second, section one of the Australia Act 1986 provides:
"No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth, to a State or to a Territory as part of the law of the Commonwealth, of the State or of the Territory."
It does not provide any exception relating to amendments to the Constitution. So I would say that lifted any ambiguity that might still have existed.

[Forsher]

Yeah, that doesn't mean determining that is simple.

She IS a Scottish citizen. The question is not whether the Court determines that is true, it IS true.

The question is whether the Court finds their is sufficient ambiguity in that clause of the Constitution too warrant NOT following the current interpretation of it. Given how unambiguous the section is, I find it difficult to see how they could, but the High Court will make it's judgement either way. Until then we really don't have much of an idea on what comes next.

I'm not entirely convinced that it is true (Dazchan's link was about preliminary advice). AndI am definitely not convinced that it is easy to tell if she is. Go look at the laws and tell me with certainty you believe she is.

EDIT: accuracy

[AiliailiA]

Since the Australian Constitution is technically an Act of Westminster Parliament, and the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty still holds firm in Britain, in theory that would mean that the British Parliament could still change our Constitution by legislation... (good reason for a Republic right there).

I'm reasonably sure that's not true. For two reasons. First, section 128 of the Australian Constitution itself provides that the Constitution can only be amended by the following process: the amendment must be approved by an absolute majority of members of both houses of the federal Parliament and by a majority of voters in a majority of the states.

You left out one of the provisions, the requirement for a national majorty of Australians voting:

The Constitutional Provisions

The Commonwealth Parliament initiates constitutional amendments. Section 128 of the Australian Constitution requires that a proposal to amend the Constitution must first take the form of a Bill submitted to the Commonwealth Parliament. Between two and six months after it leaves the Parliament, the proposal 'shall be submitted' in a referendum to the voters in the various States and Territories.

For an amendment to be ratified, the so-called 'double majority' is required. There must be a majority of voters saying YES in a majority of the States (i.e. at least four of the six), but there must also be a nation-wide affirmative vote. Territory votes are included in the national total, but not in any State figure (for the wording of s. 128 see Appendix).

If there were narrow majorities in 4 States but the people of the other 2 States and of the Territories voted strongly against, this could result in no national majority and the amendment wouldn't pass.

Let's have a look at the actual wording to be sure

Appendix: s. 128 of the Commonwealth Constitution

This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner:

The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.

But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute majority, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the first-mentioned House in the same or the next session again passes the proposed law by an absolute majority with or without any amendment which has been made or agreed to by the other House, and such other House rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, the Governor-General may submit the proposed law as last proposed by the first-mentioned House, and either with or without any amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors in each State and Territory qualified to vote for the election of the House of Representatives.

When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one-half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.

And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approved the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent.

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.

Absolute majority required in both chambers, EXCEPT that an amendment bill passed twice by only one chamber (with 3 months intervening) can at the discretion of the Governor-General be put to the people after all.

The discount of universal suffrage votes no longer applies, as every state is required to have universal suffrage now.

Bolded is the "double majority"

Finally, an amendment specifically affecting a state requires a majority vote in that State, as well as the 'double majoirty'. So for instance, moving the Queensland/Northern Territory border would require a national majority, a majority in at least 4 States, and one of those States would have to be Queensland. A majority in the Northern Territory would NOT be required, as it's not a State.

[Great Karoo]

As an Aussie, i laughed for about 2 mins straight after hearing about Barnaby (i guess it helps i'm left wing). But seriously, i don't think they'll lose government because of this even if Barnaby has to resign. They'll just ally with Xenophon or Hanson or somebody.

Xenophon and Hanson are both senators, not MPs. However, the NXT does have a member currently in the House of Representatives, and I could also see the Coalition doing some sort of deal with Katter. That, or one of the other 2 independents. Certainly don't see the Greens aligning themselves with the Coalition in the case of a minority government.

[Cedoria]

As an Aussie, i laughed for about 2 mins straight after hearing about Barnaby (i guess it helps i'm left wing). But seriously, i don't think they'll lose government because of this even if Barnaby has to resign. They'll just ally with Xenophon or Hanson or somebody.

Xenophon and Hanson are both senators, not MPs. However, the NXT does have a member currently in the House of Representatives, and I could also see the Coalition doing some sort of deal with Katter. That, or one of the other 2 independents. Certainly don't see the Greens aligning themselves with the Coalition in the case of a minority government.

Senators ARE MPs...

Sorry to quibble.

I'd say Katter based on his past history is more likely to align with Labor, and Xenophon will align with whoever benefits Xenophon.

[Cedoria]

Since the Australian Constitution is technically an Act of Westminster Parliament, and the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty still holds firm in Britain, in theory that would mean that the British Parliament could still change our Constitution by legislation... (good reason for a Republic right there).

I'm reasonably sure that's not true. For two reasons. First, section 128 of the Australian Constitution itself provides that the Constitution can only be amended by the following process: the amendment must be approved by an absolute majority of members of both houses of the federal Parliament and by a majority of voters in a majority of the states. The Constitution provides no other means for its own amendment. It does not recognise a power for the British Parliament to amend it.

Second, section one of the Australia Act 1986 provides:
"No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth, to a State or to a Territory as part of the law of the Commonwealth, of the State or of the Territory."
It does not provide any exception relating to amendments to the Constitution. So I would say that lifted any ambiguity that might still have existed.

I would've thought that pretty likely, it's just an interesting thought to bring up.

[Greed and Death]

If Australia's govnerment collapses the US shall claim them as a territory.

[MERIZoC]

Not particularly relevant, but Pauline Hanson's stunt yesterday was quite...something.

Xenophon and Hanson are both senators, not MPs. However, the NXT does have a member currently in the House of Representatives, and I could also see the Coalition doing some sort of deal with Katter. That, or one of the other 2 independents. Certainly don't see the Greens aligning themselves with the Coalition in the case of a minority government.

Senators ARE MPs...

Sorry to quibble.

I'd say Katter based on his past history is more likely to align with Labor, and Xenophon will align with whoever benefits Xenophon.

I can't see Xenophon being particularly keen on attaching his party to a flailing and sinking government that will almost certainly not see success in the next election.