Australian Government on Brink of Collapse

[Cedoria]

Well now, for those of you who haven't been paying attention, some interesting stuff is going on in Australia.

For those who don't know, there's been a lot of talk about the topic of dual citizens in Parliament in Australia the last month or so. The source of this contention is S44 of the Australian Constitution, which states the following.

Any person who:

(i) is under any acknowledgment 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 a citizen of a foreign power; or

(ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer; or

(iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or

(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

(v) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons;

shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

Now sub-section 1 is the relevant section here, because about a month ago 2 Greens Party senators were forced to resign upon discovering they had dual citizenship, thus making them ineligible for election.

Now though, the problem has come up again, none other than Deputy Prime Minister and National Party leader Barnaby Joyce (foreigners might know him as the ham-faced dude who threatened to shoot Johnny Depp's poodles), has been confirmed to have New Zealand citizenship. Since the Liberal/National Coalition has only a one-seat majority in the House of Representatives, where government is formed, this is obviously a disaster for the government, and threatens a Constitutional crisis.

Joyce has referred his case too the High Court to check his eligiability, the Government is saying they're sure the High Court will confirm him eligible, but I don't see how they can do that with how unambiguous the relevant Constitutional sections are.


What do you think NSG? Should Joyce resign? Does this mean the end of the government and another election? Do you think it will come too that, or will some loophole be found?

Personally, I think the section is pretty clear and unambiguous, the law is the law, and if the two Greens members had to resign, Joyce should have to as well, and certainly not getting public assistance for his legal defence (which seems to be nothing more than claiming ignorance, which the High Court has not really held as sufficient excuse in the past). So technically, if confirmed that he must resign, that would mean the Government of Australia and all the laws it has passed since the last election (September 2016), are possibly illegal.

Give me your thoughts fellow NSGers! I think we're in for a legal s**tstorm if Joyce has to resign, since him being necessary for the government's bills too pass the HOR would technically throw most of it's legislation since the election into legal doubt, this could be a mess that could take a while to resolve!

On the comforting side, I feel only in Australia could we run a constitutionally unlawful government and not find out about it until nearly a year into it's term. It's hilarious!

Some relevant media links below:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politi ... xvlnk.html

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politi ... xvhs2.html

[Dazchan]

Two Greens senators have resigned, with one One Nation senator, one Liberal MP and now the Nationals leader all facing High Court challenges over their citizenship...

Of course, these are just the ones that have been found out. At least the Greens did the honorable thing and resigned immediately.

[Cedoria]

Two Greens senators have resigned, with one One Nation senator, one Liberal MP and now the Nationals leader all facing High Court challenges over their citizenship...

Of course, these are just the ones that have been found out. At least the Greens did the honorable thing and resigned immediately.

Agreed, I do think Joyce might have more a chance of getting away with it if he and others hadn't jumped up and down when Waters and Ludlum resigned...

This is going too be fun, pass the popcorn.

Fun in a seriously absurd, WTF is happening sort of way, but fun nonetheless.

But I agree that he should resign, but that's hardly the end of it, it raises all sorts of questions about who becomes the Government, whether there is a new election, what happens to the laws that relied on his vote, etc...

Really, it's quite absurd. Is it really that hard too check before you sign the form that explicitly asks if you are a dual citizen? Where do they find these people...

[Minoa]

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

I know that there are some countries from which you can’t renounce their citizenship.

[Cedoria]

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

I know that there are some countries from which you can’t renounce their citizenship.

Well, there isn't a problem in most places, but for Parliament, the Constitution at present is very clear that you can't be a dual citizen and be in Parliament, if you are, you must renounce it before being elected.

Doesn't matter if it's New Zealand or anywhere else... So they look like they're in a real bind.

[Pasong Tirad]

Kiwis are taking over the world, it seems.

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

I know that there are some countries from which you can’t renounce their citizenship.

It's a big concern for a lot of governments that if you run for public office, you have to renounce your citizenship of whichever country you're also a citizen of. Being a dual citizen and an elected public official might present a conflict of interest, among other things, and (at least in theory) might prevent you from always choosing the country that elected you first.

[New Rogernomics]

Weird Australians and their outdated rules, especially this racist nonsense about how a dual-citizen is a traitor, 'unworthy of public office' by default, due to citizenship status of one or more of their parents.

Never thought I would be quoting Star Trek, but kinda rings true here:

"[...]Have we become so... fearful, have we become so cowardly, that we must extinguish a man because he carries the blood of a current enemy?[...]"

Apparently the current Australian government believes that NZ'ers are going to ride in on sheep, and seize the country.

[Cedoria]

Kiwis are taking over the world, it seems.

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

I know that there are some countries from which you can’t renounce their citizenship.

It's a big concern for a lot of governments that if you run for public office, you have to renounce your citizenship of whichever country you're also a citizen of. Being a dual citizen and an elected public official might present a conflict of interest, among other things, and (at least in theory) might prevent you from always choosing the country that elected you first.

Doesn't always work that way, but yes, that's the purpose of that section of the Constitution. It's been there since 1901 and more than half our Parliamentarians are lawyers, I don't see how so many could be so stupid too let this slip through the gaps for so long. It's ludicrous and says a lot about the quality (or lack thereof) of the people we are choosing. Most Australians would be lucky too know we HAVE a constitution, granted, but you would think people whose job it is too make the laws would at least understand them, particularly when they've signed legal documents swearing that they are NOT dual citizens upon election (as they all do).

[Cedoria]

Weird Australians and their outdated rules, especially this racist nonsense about how a dual-citizen is a traitor, 'unworthy of public office' by default, due to citizenship status of one or more of their parents.

Never thought I would be quoting Star Trek, but kinda rings true here:

"[...]Have we become so... fearful, have we become so cowardly, that we must extinguish a man because he carries the blood of a current enemy?[...]"

Apparently the current Australian government believes that NZ'ers are going to ride in on sheep, and seize the country.

Not really. As one poster explained, it's mainly based on the provision that it supposedly prevents conflicts of interest.

It's not saying that any person whose a dual citizen is automatically an enemy.

The problem is our Constitution needs a majority of voters AND states too change, in a compulsory referendum, and is notorious for being damnably hard too do. Short of getting rid of that section, there's no way around this, and even doing that would take years...

So we're stuck with it...

And it's not the government pushing this, they're the ones who are immediately affected by it, if anything, it's going too be the Opposition and minor parties (especially the Greens, since they've already lost two Senators too the same section), are going to be out for Joyce's blood.

[Pasong Tirad]

Kiwis are taking over the world, it seems.


It's a big concern for a lot of governments that if you run for public office, you have to renounce your citizenship of whichever country you're also a citizen of. Being a dual citizen and an elected public official might present a conflict of interest, among other things, and (at least in theory) might prevent you from always choosing the country that elected you first.

Doesn't always work that way, but yes, that's the purpose of that section of the Constitution. It's been there since 1901 and more than half our Parliamentarians are lawyers, I don't see how so many could be so stupid too let this slip through the gaps for so long. It's ludicrous and says a lot about the quality (or lack thereof) of the people we are choosing. Most Australians would be lucky too know we HAVE a constitution, granted, but you would think people whose job it is too make the laws would at least understand them, particularly when they've signed legal documents swearing that they are NOT dual citizens upon election (as they all do).

I was also speaking in general. I know that here, elected or not, you can't be a dual citizen and work for the government, but the rules aren't strictly enforced if you're not an elected representative (I have a friend who works at a city hall who's half-American). I just figured the same logic for having this no dual citizen thing here would apply in Australia as well.

[New Rogernomics]

Kiwis are taking over the world, it seems.

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

I know that there are some countries from which you can’t renounce their citizenship.

It's a big concern for a lot of governments that if you run for public office, you have to renounce your citizenship of whichever country you're also a citizen of. Being a dual citizen and an elected public official might present a conflict of interest, among other things, and (at least in theory) might prevent you from always choosing the country that elected you first.

Which is total nonsense, and a very out-dated and flawed rationale. In fact, countries are lot more multi-cultural and multi-ethnic than when these rules were put in place, and it is increasingly common to have a foreign parent. I wouldn't bat an eye if a future US President happened to have Chinese citizenship.

[Pasong Tirad]

Kiwis are taking over the world, it seems.


It's a big concern for a lot of governments that if you run for public office, you have to renounce your citizenship of whichever country you're also a citizen of. Being a dual citizen and an elected public official might present a conflict of interest, among other things, and (at least in theory) might prevent you from always choosing the country that elected you first.

Which is total nonsense, and a very out-dated and flawed rationale. In fact, countries are lot more multi-cultural and multi-ethnic than when these rules were put in place, and it is increasingly common to have a foreign parent. I wouldn't bat an eye if a future US President happened to have Chinese citizenship.

You may be thinking of ethnicity, though. An ethnically Chinese, American president is fine in the same vein that an ethnically Kiwi Australian Deputy Prime Minister is fine. A Chinese citizen who's also the American president, though?

Don't get me wrong, I get where you're coming from. But nations have to think (as they usually always do) of what's in their best interests. If an elected official is also a citizen of another country, that itself presents a conflict of interest.

[Cedoria]

Kiwis are taking over the world, it seems.


It's a big concern for a lot of governments that if you run for public office, you have to renounce your citizenship of whichever country you're also a citizen of. Being a dual citizen and an elected public official might present a conflict of interest, among other things, and (at least in theory) might prevent you from always choosing the country that elected you first.

Which is total nonsense, and a very out-dated and flawed rationale. In fact, countries are lot more multi-cultural and multi-ethnic than when these rules were put in place, and it is increasingly common to have a foreign parent. I wouldn't bat an eye if a future US President happened to have Chinese citizenship.

Neither would I, but as I said, it's a Constitutional clause, not merely a law, and thus is damnably hard too get rid of. It would take years, and even then, many would oppose removing it on the grounds that Parliamentarians should be loyal to Australia alone.

We've had many former dual citizens serve in Parliament before (two Prime Ministers, Abbott and Gillard), but usually you are obliged to resign the citizenship before you are elected (as both those former PMs can prove they did).

It's not like it's THAT hard too get around if you follow the paperwork, but since Joyce didn't, there's now going to be a clusterfuck of epic proportions... Since the Government of Australia is as of now technically an illegal one...

[New Rogernomics]

Weird Australians and their outdated rules, especially this racist nonsense about how a dual-citizen is a traitor, 'unworthy of public office' by default, due to citizenship status of one or more of their parents.

Never thought I would be quoting Star Trek, but kinda rings true here:
Apparently the current Australian government believes that NZ'ers are going to ride in on sheep, and seize the country.

Not really. As one poster explained, it's mainly based on the provision that it supposedly prevents conflicts of interest.

It's not saying that any person whose a dual citizen is automatically an enemy.

The problem is our Constitution needs a majority of voters AND states too change, in a compulsory referendum, and is notorious for being damnably hard too do. Short of getting rid of that section, there's no way around this, and even doing that would take years...

So we're stuck with it...

And it's not the government pushing this, they're the ones who are immediately affected by it, if anything, it's going too be the Opposition and minor parties (especially the Greens, since they've already lost two Senators too the same section), are going to be out for Joyce's blood.

Actually that is exactly what it implies. It implies that someone is suspect, and unworthy of holding an office, not on basis of any intelligence information, but a broad brush rule. Whatever way they want to frame it, it is still relegating someone to second-class status, on basis of an ethnic relationship they had no control over.

[Pasong Tirad]

Not really. As one poster explained, it's mainly based on the provision that it supposedly prevents conflicts of interest.

It's not saying that any person whose a dual citizen is automatically an enemy.

The problem is our Constitution needs a majority of voters AND states too change, in a compulsory referendum, and is notorious for being damnably hard too do. Short of getting rid of that section, there's no way around this, and even doing that would take years...

So we're stuck with it...

And it's not the government pushing this, they're the ones who are immediately affected by it, if anything, it's going too be the Opposition and minor parties (especially the Greens, since they've already lost two Senators too the same section), are going to be out for Joyce's blood.

Actually that is exactly what it implies. It implies that someone is suspect, and unworthy of holding an office, not on basis of any intelligence information, but a broad brush rule. Whatever way they want to frame it, it is still relegating someone to second-class status, on basis of an ethnic relationship they had no control over.

Again, not an ethnic relationship. A legal relationship. That's what this law is concerned with. A citizen of another country is also beholden to that other country's laws just as much as they're beholden to the rules in the country they want to run for office in.

[New Rogernomics]

Which is total nonsense, and a very out-dated and flawed rationale. In fact, countries are lot more multi-cultural and multi-ethnic than when these rules were put in place, and it is increasingly common to have a foreign parent. I wouldn't bat an eye if a future US President happened to have Chinese citizenship.

You may be thinking of ethnicity, though. An ethnically Chinese, American president is fine in the same vein that an ethnically Kiwi Australian Deputy Prime Minister is fine. A Chinese citizen who's also the American president, though?

Don't get me wrong, I get where you're coming from. But nations have to think (as they usually always do) of what's in their best interests. If an elected official is also a citizen of another country, that itself presents a conflict of interest.

Not necessarily. There is nothing that can't be resolved either in court, or by a thorough evaluation by an intelligence service.

Effectively denying citizens the right to any kind of procedure, or means to defend their professional reputation and status as an Australian doesn't make any sense. It gets even more ridiculous when you consider that an Australian with no foreign citizenship, could just as easily betray Australia, as any with a foreign citizenship.

[Pasong Tirad]

You may be thinking of ethnicity, though. An ethnically Chinese, American president is fine in the same vein that an ethnically Kiwi Australian Deputy Prime Minister is fine. A Chinese citizen who's also the American president, though?

Don't get me wrong, I get where you're coming from. But nations have to think (as they usually always do) of what's in their best interests. If an elected official is also a citizen of another country, that itself presents a conflict of interest.

Not necessarily. There is nothing that can't be resolved either in court, or by a thorough evaluation by an intelligence service.

Effectively denying citizens the right to any kind of procedure, or means to defend their professional reputation and status as an Australian doesn't make any sense. It gets even more ridiculous when you consider that an Australian with no foreign citizenship, could just as easily betray Australia, as any with a foreign citizenship.

Again, as I've stated above, the concern lies a lot on the fact that as a citizen of both Australia and New Zealand, they are beholden to the laws of both countries. Perhaps also as a way to avoid any legal conundrums that come with being both a dual citizen and an elected official, the said elected official is always asked to renounce the other citizenship before taking office, even if it's just a precaution.

[New Rogernomics]

Actually that is exactly what it implies. It implies that someone is suspect, and unworthy of holding an office, not on basis of any intelligence information, but a broad brush rule. Whatever way they want to frame it, it is still relegating someone to second-class status, on basis of an ethnic relationship they had no control over.

Again, not an ethnic relationship. A legal relationship. That's what this law is concerned with. A citizen of another country is also beholden to that other country's laws just as much as they're beholden to the rules in the country they want to run for office in.

It is ethnic, as well as legal. The whole nonsense is based around the idea that because someone has foreign blood and will follow laws as required in that country, they are suspect to undermining the society and security of the host country.
Can't corrupt those minds with foreign films or anime, might god-forbid, give them a better understanding of the world. Can't have that.

Not necessarily. There is nothing that can't be resolved either in court, or by a thorough evaluation by an intelligence service.

Effectively denying citizens the right to any kind of procedure, or means to defend their professional reputation and status as an Australian doesn't make any sense. It gets even more ridiculous when you consider that an Australian with no foreign citizenship, could just as easily betray Australia, as any with a foreign citizenship.

Again, as I've stated above, the concern lies a lot on the fact that as a citizen of both Australia and New Zealand, they are beholden to the laws of both countries. Perhaps also as a way to avoid any legal conundrums that come with being both a dual citizen and an elected official, the said elected official is always asked to renounce the other citizenship before taking office, even if it's just a precaution.

They are not being given that choice though, even if they are entirely ignorant of the citizenship they had upon taking office.

[Cedoria]

Not really. As one poster explained, it's mainly based on the provision that it supposedly prevents conflicts of interest.

It's not saying that any person whose a dual citizen is automatically an enemy.

The problem is our Constitution needs a majority of voters AND states too change, in a compulsory referendum, and is notorious for being damnably hard too do. Short of getting rid of that section, there's no way around this, and even doing that would take years...

So we're stuck with it...

And it's not the government pushing this, they're the ones who are immediately affected by it, if anything, it's going too be the Opposition and minor parties (especially the Greens, since they've already lost two Senators too the same section), are going to be out for Joyce's blood.

Actually that is exactly what it implies. It implies that someone is suspect, and unworthy of holding an office, not on basis of any intelligence information, but a broad brush rule. Whatever way they want to frame it, it is still relegating someone to second-class status, on basis of an ethnic relationship they had no control over.

Not really, ethnic status is irrelevant. Abbot and Gillard were both born overseas, but both provably renounced their citizenship before being elected, it doesn't apply too people born overseas, just too those holding dual citizenship. There is a distinct difference.

It's an issue of legal status, not ethnicity.

[Bakery Hill]

This is really great to watch. The memes are glorious. I am revelling in the chaos.

[Cedoria]

Again, not an ethnic relationship. A legal relationship. That's what this law is concerned with. A citizen of another country is also beholden to that other country's laws just as much as they're beholden to the rules in the country they want to run for office in.

It is ethnic, as well as legal. The whole nonsense is based around the idea that because someone has foreign blood and will follow laws as required in that country, they are suspect to undermining the society and security of the host country.
Can't corrupt those minds with foreign films or anime, might god-forbid, give them a better understanding of the world. Can't have that.

Again, as I've stated above, the concern lies a lot on the fact that as a citizen of both Australia and New Zealand, they are beholden to the laws of both countries. Perhaps also as a way to avoid any legal conundrums that come with being both a dual citizen and an elected official, the said elected official is always asked to renounce the other citizenship before taking office, even if it's just a precaution.

They are not being given that choice though, even if they are entirely ignorant of the citizenship they had upon taking office.

As I said, it's got little to do with that. Anyone who is born anywhere can be elected too the Aussie Parliament (I think about 40% have at least one parent born overseas), the only requirement is that they renounce their citizenship before they are elected. It's not too complicated too understand, and most of them should be able too.

And even if your argument were true as it applies too New Zealand, the fact is there are plenty of other countries which would offer more concern, and irrespective of that, we are not debating whether or not the constitutional section is a good one, the fact is, it exists, and that's not changing anytime soon (if ever). Really, the question I'm interested in is what this does too the Government and the laws it's passed with a one-seat majority in the HOR since September last year (many of which are potentially illegal if Joyce is ruled ineligable too serve).

[Cedoria]

This is really great to watch. The memes are glorious. I am revelling in the chaos.

As am I! I adore a good Theatre of the Absurd performance...

[Pasong Tirad]

Again, not an ethnic relationship. A legal relationship. That's what this law is concerned with. A citizen of another country is also beholden to that other country's laws just as much as they're beholden to the rules in the country they want to run for office in.

It is ethnic, as well as legal. The whole nonsense is based around the idea that because someone has foreign blood and will follow laws as required in that country, they are suspect to undermining the society and security of the host country.
Can't corrupt those minds with foreign films or anime, might god-forbid, give them a better understanding of the world. Can't have that.

It would be ethnic if New Zealand or Australia were jus sanguinis countries. They aren't, though. The only issue is that they were born overseas. Again, as citizens of other countries they're also beholden to the laws of the Kiwis. Much the same reason why America and a lot of other countries can't have a chief executive who wasn't a natural-born citizen. Conflict of interest.

Again, as I've stated above, the concern lies a lot on the fact that as a citizen of both Australia and New Zealand, they are beholden to the laws of both countries. Perhaps also as a way to avoid any legal conundrums that come with being both a dual citizen and an elected official, the said elected official is always asked to renounce the other citizenship before taking office, even if it's just a precaution.

They are not being given that choice though, even if they are entirely ignorant of the citizenship they had upon taking office.

They most definitely are being given a choice. Renounce foreign citizenship or lose your elected seat.

[Cedoria]

The section in question doesn't even apply to place of birth, just citizenship. It's entirely possible too be born in Australia and still be affected by this provision (as I believe Joyce was). Thus it's not really an ethnic issue per se, and it's usually pretty easy too resolve, it's not like its an unknown requirement and plenty of Parliamentarians have renounced their citizenship before and provided documentation. It's not like this hasn't been known for a long time. Joyce has been around long enough too remember Gillard having to produce her documentation of it, so he really can't pretend it just completely slipped his mind until now, not too mention it's been at least a month since Ludlam and Waters resigned, that should've made him wake up...

[Cedoria]

It is ethnic, as well as legal. The whole nonsense is based around the idea that because someone has foreign blood and will follow laws as required in that country, they are suspect to undermining the society and security of the host country.
Can't corrupt those minds with foreign films or anime, might god-forbid, give them a better understanding of the world. Can't have that.

It would be ethnic if New Zealand or Australia were jus sanguinis countries. They aren't, though. The only issue is that they were born overseas. Again, as citizens of other countries they're also beholden to the laws of the Kiwis. Much the same reason why America and a lot of other countries can't have a chief executive who wasn't a natural-born citizen. Conflict of interest.

They are not being given that choice though, even if they are entirely ignorant of the citizenship they had upon taking office.

They most definitely are being given a choice. Renounce foreign citizenship or lose your elected seat.

Renounce foreign citizenship or NOT BE ELECTED more like. It's not retrospective I believe, so if Joyce resigned his citizenship tomorrow he'd still be in a ton of trouble (especially since the Government made such a dance about Ludlam and Waters and they weren't offered such a deal).

The way I see it, if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander. He had plenty of opportunity too check, and didn't, now the consequences must be faced, long, difficult and very legally messy though they are likely to be...