Hilarious that labor and the greens have him a standing ovation but not his own party lol
AusPoliGaf |Early 2016 Election| - the government's term has been... Shortened
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
Hilarious that labor and the greens have him a standing ovation but not his own party lol
D.Lo
Member
bobnowhere
Member
Fiona Nash is a dual British citizen by descent, leader and deputy of the Nats now in trouble. Is reffering herself to the HC, not standing down though.
Barry O'Sullivan in trouble as well as the contruction company he owns is working on an 80% publically funded road project in Towoomba.
I think there is a practice in place that a standing ovation can only happen in very specific cases, end of the budget speech etc... The response was still very underwhelming on the government side.
Barry O'Sullivan in trouble as well as the contruction company he owns is working on an 80% publically funded road project in Towoomba.
I think there is a practice in place that a standing ovation can only happen in very specific cases, end of the budget speech etc... The response was still very underwhelming on the government side.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
This dual citizenship thing is amazing to watch as an outsider. It just keeps coming.
Im not talking about their eligibility to run. Im talking about the normalisation of the party and its current and former members in the media. That shit didnt fly so well first go round but it seems like its been more accepted now that theyre primarily targeting Muslims. Bigotry is bigotry.
I'm gonna quote my favourite bit of Annabel Crabb's book on Turnbull;
Not for nothing, but the Nats basically smothered any chance of Turnbull being a centrist populist Prime Minister in its cradle.
When he chucked Abbott they demanded, alongside the responsibility for the water portfolio going to them, no action on climate change or marriage equality, things were Turnbull and the public were on the same side and were really, really easy lay ups that could have led to him building momentum. That momentum might have left him in a very different situation electorally last year.
Instead they put a weight around his neck for their support to form government and it looks like they're similarly going to destroy him through their sloppiness even though he's done everything they asked of him.
It's hilarious when you really think about it.
bobnowhere
Member
It took a few hours for Malcolm to sign his balls aways. He must have been desparate to show complete unity to the public, if he'd waited until the first polls he would have been in a position of power but he screwed himself from the first night.
For such a tiny number of bumpkins, the Dual-Nationals wield an inordinate amount of power.
Also a SA Coalition lower house MP is likely going to jail.
Social sensitivities are more the point I think. She's inciting fear and hatred. I wouldn't believe anyone arguing against what she did on the basis of religious sensitivity either.
It is weird that it's never come up before. After it's been there for 100 years.
No one cares one iota that the name of the central figure of my religion is used as a literal swear word by probably 90% of the Australian population. It's so entrenched in the lexicon that when you ask someone to stop you're given the strangest looks. Heck, I can guarantee people reading this post are rolling their eyes.
Again, this isn't to defend Hanson. Her stunt was stupid and fear driven (even though I think the burqa itself is oppressive ((although I wouldn't ban it. As a practicing Christian I appreciate religious liberty)). But you can't pick and choose what religious sensitivities you get to defend or you just look like an opportunist using a religion to score political points. Which funnily enough is how I would describe how most people use Islam today anyway. The burqa stands in opposition to practically everything the left stands for except for the fact that it's used by a minority group and as such must be defended at all costs.
Defending peoples upbringing from attacks from white nationalists and avowed fascists is pretty good. If that's "point scoring" then sure, people should go out score a few more points imo. If someone wants to kick you out of your country because you look funny, or your hat looks funny, then I'll defend you too.
Sure, completely agree. But like you said earlier, I don't think that has to do with religious sensitivities.
Yep, I don't think religious sensitivity is the problem with what she did personally. It wouldn't surprise me if someone did think that though, and I would think they were missing the point.
bobnowhere
Member
Nick Xenophon is a Brit. His father was born in Cyprus which was a British Colony at the time and traveled to Australia on a British passport. Hasn't reffered himself to the HC yet and won't stand down.
Canavan who really seems to have one of the strongest cases must be kicking himself for standing down now the everyone else has decided the rules don't apply to them.
Canavan who really seems to have one of the strongest cases must be kicking himself for standing down now the everyone else has decided the rules don't apply to them.
Elaugaufein
Member
I think the more interesting thing about Hanson's stunt is that the DT isn't straight up supporting her. It seems disapproving, the other Murdoch papers seem to be similar or equivocal.
It was pretty much irrelevant for large chunks of that because the section hasn't changed but citizenship law has so what's a violation has changed.
It wasn't until 1948 that we had Australian Citizenship before that it was Commonwealth Citizenship and everyone except Canavan hit so far would have been fine. The actual judgement that Canada / Britain / UK counted as foreign powers didn't come until the 80s.
Then the White Australia policy still acted as a kind of shield from it, since it prevented local immigration and no one was much fussed (we've had MPs who violated it before including an American and they didn't get caught because nobody cared*).
And modern dual citizenship is a product of the post WW2 world , Australia didn't really recognise it until the 1980s, and many other countries had similar attitudes.
* Its probably more true to say they recognised that it's purpose was to keep "undesirables" (is not white and English speaking and acceptabke to Britain ) out.
It was pretty much irrelevant for large chunks of that because the section hasn't changed but citizenship law has so what's a violation has changed.
It wasn't until 1948 that we had Australian Citizenship before that it was Commonwealth Citizenship and everyone except Canavan hit so far would have been fine. The actual judgement that Canada / Britain / UK counted as foreign powers didn't come until the 80s.
Then the White Australia policy still acted as a kind of shield from it, since it prevented local immigration and no one was much fussed (we've had MPs who violated it before including an American and they didn't get caught because nobody cared*).
And modern dual citizenship is a product of the post WW2 world , Australia didn't really recognise it until the 1980s, and many other countries had similar attitudes.
* Its probably more true to say they recognised that it's purpose was to keep "undesirables" (is not white and English speaking and acceptabke to Britain ) out.
Imagine how frustrated Ludlam is watching all this.
D.Lo
Member
Nah, Ludlam is honestly the most 'guilty' one - he was born to New Zealand parents in New Zealand.
Assuming his story is true, Canavan is the most innocent (never even been to Italy and application for citizenship was without his knowledge or consent), followed closely by Waters whose situation was a true bureaucratic oddity of timing and she has no real ties to the country.
jellies_two
Member
I Have some sympathy for Xenophon really he did Renounce his Greek citizenship but the whole
Cyprus being a British colony thing was a little less obvious.
I have kids and a uk passport and it never occurred to me that they are British citizens automatically, I thought that sort of happens the first time they turn up on the radar eg with a passport application. mind you they are not running for office.
It's rather funny thinking about these guys sitting around in parliament arguing about immigration and multi culturalism while not even realizing they are citizens of other countries.
Cyprus being a British colony thing was a little less obvious.
I have kids and a uk passport and it never occurred to me that they are British citizens automatically, I thought that sort of happens the first time they turn up on the radar eg with a passport application. mind you they are not running for office.
It's rather funny thinking about these guys sitting around in parliament arguing about immigration and multi culturalism while not even realizing they are citizens of other countries.
I meant more that he stepped down immediately while Joyce et al sit on their hands when they are clearly also in breach.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
If someone goes through the history of Australian politicians, I have to imagine that there are dozens of MPs that would have been disqualified if anyone bothered to check.
Elaugaufein
Member
There'd definitely be a few post Citizenship act (and as I said before there's at least 1 American before*) but pre-Sykes v Cleary. Though pre 83 you could probably have made a decent argument that taking Australian citizenship was sufficient in itself (it requires forswearing other allegiance),since the entire current reading is judicial. On black letter law, the lot of them are out, as is anyone who could take up a citizenship and hasn't actually renounced that potential or is entitled to any similar rights. There's no black letter law exemption on reasonable effort or insanity of requirements or Latveria granting citizenship to anyone who's nominated for am Australian Federal election.
* And one ALP politician turned out be technically Stateless due to the less than great record keeping pre - computers and mobile phones.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Jeez, how does that happen?
So will the law/Constitution change, or will they just assume the High Court will sort this out and they'll all get to stay on? If so, does that mean that the Green senators can come back?
Elaugaufein
Member
Pretty easily if you're born in a rural area in a time registration is handled by a local or travelling clerks and sent by post and all records are on paper in archives which can be flooded or catch fire or be lost in relocations etc.
This turned up in like the 50a or 60s so the actual registration would have been around the turn of the century.
AFAIK it was cleaned up without any controversy.
Elaugaufein
Member
Depends on the outcome.
The government is hoping for either a revision on what constitutes reasonable effort (~ that if you didn't know you were a citizen of a foreign country (maybe with some exemptions for reasonable suspicion) no action is reasonable) or a revision that holds renunciation is only a reasonable step for citizenship by birth rather than descent. While the latter clears all the non-Greens but not the Greens it's also a pretty optimistic hope, since descent is just as standard for citizenship as birth so it would be a tad novel to say it doesn't count.
A revision may or may not clear the Greens or clear one or the other but not both (Ludlam's position is weaker than Waters'). If it did the situation cleans itself up, the seat(s) become a casual vacancy which the party appoints (so they could appoint Waters to her own vacancy, it looks to me like Ludlam isn't interested in a return* so the seat would probably still go to Jordan-Steele since it would seem churlish to do otherwise) , rather than a recount.
* I suppose it's possible someone might prevail upon him for the sake of the party but he genuinely seems glad to be out and not planning a return. A quick look at his Twitter shows a distinctly more aggressive take than his previous (and he was already cutting ) while Larissa Waters' Twitter is pretty much the same, including promotion of political actions and meetings by the party.
D.Lo
Member
In the pre-computer ages it would have been much harder, slower and more expensive to check on the eligibility of someone you didn't like.
Remember this who thing started because an enemy of Hinch was searching for dirt on him. If that took months of tenacity and many dollars in mail and international phone calls and requests it wouldn't have happened.
Remember this who thing started because an enemy of Hinch was searching for dirt on him. If that took months of tenacity and many dollars in mail and international phone calls and requests it wouldn't have happened.
True. Though still surprising it never got looked at during the Howard, Rudd and Gillard eras. Especially Gillard given how razor thin that government was.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Thinking about it now, I guess it's still very possible to find yourself in a position where you can't prove your identity or citizenship. If you don't have any living relatives to vouch for you and you lose all your documents, you're kind of screwed.
I'm almost expecting that it'll go the government's way, but there is a big part of me that hopes for the worst case scenario and they're forced to step down just to see what happens. lol
Well this I find somewhat amusing.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...ves_Committees?url=laca/section44\sum_rec.pdf
Recommendations from an inquiry in '97 where it recommended amendments to section 44.
Clearly no-one could be bothered. Serves em right.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...ves_Committees?url=laca/section44\sum_rec.pdf
Recommendations from an inquiry in '97 where it recommended amendments to section 44.
Clearly no-one could be bothered. Serves em right.
D.Lo
Member
Then IMO as far as the public is concerned you get Labor installed on a technicality, not an election. It won't be popular, and they will be tainted perception-wise and the instability we have will continue for another half decade.
Related point - let's say the same sex marriage postal thing comes back a clear no (even if it's poorly or unfairly run, rigged, boycots happen etc). What does Labor do after they win the next election? They can't force something through that the public knows just lost a popular vote, that would be political suicide. Same it would be if the vote was yes and the Libs still blocked it.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
In the unlikely event that the government falls, I would expect an election rather than a Labour government. But then again, I'd think that would be the most reasonable thing to do and perhaps not reflective of reality. lol
Does Australia have any kind of Charter or Bill of Rights? Canada was forced to legalize marriage legislatively because the courts were going to rule that banning marriage equality violated the rights of Canadian citizens. Having a court decide it might just let any government off and they can campaign on blaming the courts or whatever instead.
No, and if we ever did it would only be legislative a la the U.K.
Elaugaufein
Member
There was a similar recommendation in the 80s. Politicians are often short sighted clowns isn't exactly a new revelation sadly.
Elaugaufein
Member
Technically we could enshrine a bill in the Constitution or via it, which would give it the same or similar protections. But in the current political environment it would never happen. The LNP like tossing out civil liberties to bang the NatSec drum and Labor are absolutely incapable of challenging that on the campaign trail even if they want to because the have a long and glorious history of folding like damp paper.
That's what I mean, politically impossible rather than legally. If Hawkey couldn't manage it bill sure can't.
Elaugaufein
Member
Its tricky to call an election at the moment. We traditionally have half Senate (proportional upper house on 6 year terms with half up every 3 years) at the same time as the Lower House election. Its not possible to have a half Senate election before July next year.
The usual out is double dissolution which dissolves the entire Senate but that can't be held until the end of next year (the Lower House must be in its last 6 months).
The only way out would be a dissolution of the Lower House alone, which will mean an early House election to reysnch with the Senate probably at the end of next year. And if Labor does that they face a Senate that's only a bit more favourable to them than it was to the current Government.
They only need the Greens and NXT or one or the other and a fair number of the Crossbench. Lambie is reliably on their side for economic issues anyway. Hinch is a mixed bag but he's most conservative where the ALP are most timid so that's unlikely to matter. But everyone else is generally hostile with some exceptions for Leyjonhelm who as a Libertarian isn't dreadful on most social issues.
*NXT is fairly easy for the ALP to work with since Xenophon is basically a transactional SA First populist but he'll get his pound of flesh for every victory they claim.
The Greens are more or less free votes because the situations they split with the ALP will generally cause the conservative side to vote with the ALP.
But that's still 12 months of fighting with the Senate which could neuter their reelection chances.
Elaugaufein
Member
Yeah, Turnbull has fucked everything up epically since knifing Abbott. He's made the wrong call on basically everything from Day 1 and there's no extrication in sight for anyone. The best case for Labor is that Turnbull is forced into minority Government and held to ransom by McGowan who's the only Crossbencher still guaranteeing supply and confidence. That makes him look weak but doesn't require them to deal with the mess.
D.Lo
Member
All he needed was a snap election soon after the knifing. The public were so relieved Abbott was gone he would have been a hero, then had a big win to back him up against loony Nationals and Cory.
He assumedly didn't do it because Gillard did and got burned, but Gillard knifed a generally liked PM, not an onion munching prince Knighting choppergate defending muppet.
Elaugaufein
Member
Or told the Nats and Cory to get fucked and that they could knife him after the election in June if they didn't do well. Turnbull had several policies that would have gotten him easy centrist points, made it through the Senate and undone a lot of Abbot's damage to the LNP.
Instead he knifed Abbott and then let the same people set the exact same policy which made him look like a power hungry empty suit. Which also nobbled his ability to attack one of Shorten's greatest weaknesses: that even ALP voters can't shake the suspicion he's a cardboard cutout pretending to be a real boy.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Ah right, I forgot you had to sync up Senate elections (a problem I've never really thought of because our Senators here are appointed for life like a dumpier version of the House of Lords).
It's too bad you can't use a legal mechanism to decide marriage equality, particularly because of how absurd this plebiscite seems to be.
It's too bad you can't use a legal mechanism to decide marriage equality, particularly because of how absurd this plebiscite seems to be.
Elaugaufein
Member
We can.
A standard act of Parliament is both necessary and sufficient. Its just that the reigning Coalition (which are a mix of the Liberal Party (a mix of standard issue conservatives, economic conservative but social liberals (in molds varying from libertarian to similar to US Democrats) and your standard issue US Republican fundie nutter) and the National Party (theoretically agrarian socialists with social stances that ossified in approximately 1950 but in practice (due to sweet sweet cash) pro-Mining, pro-Fracking, Climate Change deniers with social stances that ossified in approximately 1950) are to busy having an internal war over the matter, to actually hold a Parliamentary vote which would easily pass. Basically it's failure by incompetence and a lack of spine from those in the Coalition who want it.
The only useful thing this "plebiscite" (actually a non-compulsory poorly formulated and non-scientific due to sampling bias and lack of weighting statistical survey which they are pretending is a plebiscite) has done is proven that where enough people in their party in support that the vote would pass if they crossed the floor to vote for it.
Its basically like Germany except our conservatives are significantly dumber than Merkel and our PM is pro-marriage equality but also had his spine surgically removed.
Edit - Oh, you meant via the judicial arm. That would never happen in Australia. Our High Court gives great deference to Parliament and only rules against legislation where it's outside their Constitutional power or much more rarely and narrowly when a failure to do so would undermine fundamental democratic principles (why we have a right of free political speech and probably political association but not non-political equivalents). Even our most activist Courts have been very staid by most circumstances. To be fair our more conservative courts have caused all sorts of non-desired by conservatives things due to that same inclination. They've recently decided that a failure to properly file your mining paperwork on time may invalidate your mining license for example. But an Australian High Court ruling again that Marriage Act without explicit protection on the basis of sexuality or maybe gender in the Constitution (neither are specified, actually the Constitution explicitly allows laws to discriminate based on race) would never happen.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Yeesh, this would be a funny comedy of errors if people's lives weren't being affected by this political stupidity.
Certainly given current senate makeup they'd be screwed out of passing anything.
Xenophon has been xeno-forty foured.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...holds-dual-citizenship?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...holds-dual-citizenship?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...nophon-is-a-dual-citizen-20170819-gxzu0g.html
Xenophon's a Brit too.
Man he really should not have been cracking jokes about his citizenship like he did when all this started
Xenophon's a Brit too.
Man he really should not have been cracking jokes about his citizenship like he did when all this started
Well thats not much different to Malcolm etc ridiculing the Greens for being careless.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked