So how much more could Scott Ludlam be up for?

On Sky News George Brandis draws our attention to another quirk of the constitution:

 Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any person declared by this Constitution to be incapable of sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives shall, for every day on which he so sits, be liable to pay the sum of one hundred pounds to any person who sues for it in any court of competent jurisdiction.

So that appears to be over and above any amount of salary etc. that he would be liable to repay to the Commonwealth.

I suspect this amount would be payable to those people who could reasonably argue that they were displaced by the person sitting in the parliament while being disqualified to do so – although the constitution does clearly state “any person”.

Anyway – long story short: Using the RBA calculator £100 in 1901 would be $14,757.13 today. So that works out to 9 years*365 days*14,757.13 = $48,477,172.05 as a rough guess as to how much Scott Ludlam is up for in compensation. Now we could argue that the Senate doesn’t sit every day so that figure could be a lot lower. Others might argue that £100 remains £100.

But the point is clear – the Constitution created a punitive regime for any person who sat while being disqualified. This is not a debt to the Commonwealth that can be waived by the Special Minister of State (Scott Ryan in this instance) but rather a civil action that can be brought by “any person” (but I suspect the court would interpret that as being someone who might otherwise have been elected).

Update: Gavin Putland, in comments, points to the Common Informers Act of 1975 as effectively repealing section 46.  Looking at that Act it seems that section 46 was established as an incentive mechanism to check up on the status of sitting politicians. Now that the £100 incentive fee has been removed we can have foreigners sitting in our Parliament for 9 years before anyone bothers to check up on them.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

227 Responses to So how much more could Scott Ludlam be up for?

  1. pbw

    I’d expect that 100 quid will be $2oo. Are there any other amounts mentioned in the Constitution? If so, how are they interpreted?

    A more interesting question arises. Is there a limit on the number of possible lawsuits? Get in quickly.

  2. Some History

    the Constitution created a punitive regime for any person to sat while being disqualified.

    Creative English? 🙂

    [Fixed. Thanks. Sinc]

  3. Gavin R Putland

    Parliament “otherwise provides” in the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975. The penalty is $200 per day after the suit is served, plus a TOTAL of $200 for sitting on or before that day. Section 4 says: “On and after the date of commencement of this Act, a person is not liable to pay any sum under section 46 of the Constitution and no suit shall be instituted, continued, heard or determined in pursuance of that section.”

    Full text: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cida1975507/ .

  4. Steve trickler.

    Scott needs to hold a press conference.

    Admit CAGW is a fraud. Renewable energy ( Solar -Wind ) are a farce and fraud, and MEAN it. Deep down he knows this. Everyone knows this.

    If he does that, maybe sympathetic souls will contribute to a fund, to pay back the Commonwealth all his wages and costs.

    Announce the presser Scott. Time and date.

  5. Gavin R Putland

    P.S.: And there’s no double jeopardy.

  6. a happy little debunker

    Ludlum likely never bothered to ever enrol to vote or he voted illegally in every election since 1988.

    No Mercy!

  7. Sinclair Davidson

    Gavin – that’s a pity.

    I can’t work out what the purpose of section 3 is, when section 4 doesn’t allow anyone to bring an action.

  8. Roger

    I suspect this amount would be payable to those people who could reasonably argue that they were displaced by the person sitting in the parliament while being disqualified to do so

    Given the senate quota system I doubt Ludlam has displaced anyone except the next Greens candidate on the WA ticket each time he has been up for election/reelection.

    But it would be fun to see a Green sue a Green just for filthy lucre.

  9. incoherent rambler

    I’m prepared to settle out of court for $500,000.00

  10. dauf

    He should be treated like he’d treat anyone else…’in a mean spirited way’. Make him pay and set an example

  11. Roger

    “On and after the date of commencement of this Act, a person is not liable to pay any sum under section 46 of the Constitution and no suit shall be instituted, continued, heard or determined in pursuance of that section.”

    What a pity.

    At least someone could have taken him for his flash shoes.

    Next question: What happens to his super? I expect he’ll collect it.

  12. Brett

    I think this is what you mean:

    1 Short title
    This Act may be cited as the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975.

    2 Commencement
    This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.

    3 Penalty for sitting when disqualified
    (1) Any person who, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, has sat as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives while he or she was a person declared by the Constitution to be incapable of so sitting shall be liable to pay to any person who sues for it in the High Court a sum equal to the total of:
    (a)
    $200 in respect of his or her having so sat on or before the day on which the originating process in the suit is served on him or her; and
    (b)
    $200 for every day, subsequent to that day, on which he or she is proved in the suit to have so sat.
    (2) A suit under this section shall not relate to any sitting of a person as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives at a time earlier than 12 months before the day on which the suit is instituted.
    (3) The High Court shall refuse to make an order in a suit under this Act that would, in the opinion of the Court, cause the person against whom it was made to be penalized more than once in respect of any period or day of sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives.
    4 Suits not to be brought under section 46 of the Constitution
    On and after the date of commencement of this Act, a person is not liable to pay any sum under section 46 of the Constitution and no suit shall be instituted, continued, heard or determined in pursuance of that section.

    5 Jurisdiction
    Original jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court in suits under this Act and no other court has jurisdiction in such a suit.

  13. duncanm

    So Gavin, Sinc and legal eagles.

    I think you are wrong.

    The 1975 informers act removes the ability to prosecute under Sec 46 (point 4), but replaces it with point 3.

    3 Penalty for sitting when disqualified
    (1) Any person who, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, has sat as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives while he or she was a person declared by the Constitution to be incapable of so sitting shall be liable to pay to any person who sues for it in the High Court a sum equal to the total of:
    (a)
    $200 in respect of his or her having so sat on or before the day on which the originating process in the suit is served on him or her; and
    (b)
    $200 for every day, subsequent to that day, on which he or she is proved in the suit to have so sat.

  14. duncanm

    If its still $200 in today’s dollars: 9 x 365 x 200 ~ $675k

    Not enough.

  15. H B Bear

    Anyone who thinks Dudlam is going to pay more than dollar zero is going to be disappointed. Pollies always look after their own lest it happens to them down the track.

    See also: over-claiming expenses and declaration of members interests.

  16. Maurice Miner

    H B Bear – with the utmost regret, you are assuredly correct in your prognostication of the outcome.

  17. JohnA

    Sinclair Davidson #2442536, posted on July 16, 2017 at 4:10 pm

    Gavin – that’s a pity.

    I can’t work out what the purpose of section 3 is, when section 4 doesn’t allow anyone to bring an action.

    Possible interpretation: claims can no longer be lodged under the Constitutional provision itself. All further claims can be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction.

    Could be easier and cheaper (hah!) than waltzing into the High Court with an expensive team of silks.

  18. Baldrick

    incoherent rambler
    #2442541, posted on July 16, 2017 at 4:12 pm
    I’m prepared to settle out of court for $500,000.00

    I’m with you inco. Any amount thereabouts would suffice, just so long as he is declared an undischarged bankrupt and unable to stand for re-election for the Greenfilth.

  19. Gazman

    How can a provision of the Constitution be set aside at all? I thought a referendum was required to change the Constitution. So the Parliament can nullify any provision of the Constitution?

  20. Sinclair Davidson

    Gazman

    The provision itself states: “Until the Parliament otherwise provides …”

  21. Brett

    Possible interpretation: claims can no longer be lodged under the Constitutional provision itself. All further claims can be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction.

    Could be easier and cheaper (hah!) than waltzing into the High Court with an expensive team of silks.

    Sec. 5 gives the original jurisdiction to the High Court, and expressly excludes any other court from jurisdiction.

  22. Texas Jack

    Imagine Scott Ryan politely querying all this with Turnbull. There’s more chance of Bob Menzies rising from the grave than Ludlum being forced to pay a cent….

  23. Gavin R Putland

    Yes, s.4 of the Act means that claims are to be made under the Act and not under s.46 of the Constitution. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

  24. Oh come on

    You’d think the Attorney General would know about this act and therefore not start blabbing about S.46.

  25. duncanm

    Gavin – agreed. I re-read your post and realised I had initially misinterpreted your comment. Apologies.

  26. Arky

    Scott Ludlum is not a forigner.
    This is getting completely, hysterically absurd.
    I get that you don’t like Greens. Who does?

    he must be of the full age of twenty-one years, and must be an elector entitled to vote at the election of members of the House of Representatives, or a person qualified to become such elector, and must have been for three years at the least a resident within the limits of the Commonwealth as existing at the time when he is chosen;
    he must be a subject of the Queen, either natural-born or for at least five years naturalized under a law of the United Kingdom, or of a Colony which has become or becomes a State, or of the Commonwealth, or of a State.

  27. RobK

    Duncanm,
    If its still $200 in today’s dollars: 9 x 365 x 200 ~ $675k
    Not enough.

    Unfortunately,”(2) A suit under this section shall not relate to any sitting of a person as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives at a time earlier than 12 months before the day on which the suit is instituted.”….=$73k only
    How many days in twelve months does a senator sit?

  28. Arky

    Scott Ludlam is a citizen of Australia, and was born in the nearest and closest neighbour we have, with both common origins and near identical laws.
    It is nearly an accident of history that he is in the circumstances he is in.
    Any other commenters here, or perhaps the original author who may wish to disclose, like I am, a “foreign” citizenship?

  29. Oh come on

    And I agree with HB – we won’t see a red cent out of Ludlam. Pollies reflexively look after their own. He’ll be cut slack as long as it’s politically expedient to do so, which it will be if no one in parliament makes a fuss about it.

    You know, it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if Ludlam’s ineligibility was known by both major parties. I’m not sure either party would want to be seen running a Senator out of Canberra on such a pretext – could be spun as ‘mean and tricky’. It would also mean they have leverage over him if he ever became too gadflyish.

  30. Oh come on

    Arks, what are the eligibility requirements for a seat in the Beehive?

  31. Arky

    Arks, what are the eligibility requirements for a seat in the Beehive?

    ..
    Good question.
    I’ll be back…

  32. Arky

    I think you just have to show up with a tray of lamb chops and a six pack of beer:
    ..

    New Zealand’s constitution is not found in one document. Instead, it has a number of sources, including crucial pieces of legislation, several legal documents, common law derived from court decisions as well as established constitutional practices known as conventions. Increasingly, New Zealand’s constitution reflects the Treaty of Waitangi as a founding document of government in New Zealand.

  33. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    GRAHAM RICHARDSON
    Why Scott Ludlam should not have resigned over dual citizenship

    The Australian
    5:50PM July 16, 2017
    11
    Graham Richardson
    Political columnist
    Sydney
    @SkyNewsRicho

    So often in politics, in business and in life in general we weigh up cases where it is difficult to pick the right option. The resignation from the Senate of Scott Ludlam, who had served a decade as a Senator from Western Australia is one of those cases.

    Until a Melbourne barrister, who really should get a life, actually sought access to the roll listing its citizens from the New Zealand government, Ludlam was an accepted member of the Senate. Suddenly it is revealed that he was still a New Zealand citizen as well as an Australian citizen and he is out the door in the blink of an eye.

    Ludlam left New Zealand when he was three and the only crime he committed was to forget to reject the citizenship of the country of his birth. Given that over the past 12 months we have lost two Senators for breaches over eligibility to sit in the Australian Parliament you would be entitled to think that ex-senator Ludlam might have checked to see what John Cameron, that Melbourne barrister referred to above, had discovered. Derryn Hinch was smart enough to reject his New Zealand citizenship well before the last election so you could say that Ludlam has only himself to blame.

    Of course you could also argue that this is one hell of a penalty to pay for not checking on your relationship with a nation you left at three and never known.

    Remember too, technically it would appear that Ludlam could be forced to repay the salary he earned during all those years in the Senate. I suppose you could even start poring over all the times he voted on a bill or a Senate procedural motion where one vote could make a real difference to the outcome. It is to be hoped that we are not so mean spirited that we would ever go down these paths.

    Obviously, there is an argument that the Constitution is merely trying to ensure that the only allegiance our parliamentarians have is to Australia, but again New Zealand isn’t Libya, Syria, Somalia, Russia or China.

    I realise there is rivalry between the two countries. New Zealand gave birth to the brilliant T-shirt adage — “I support anyone playing Australia”. We Aussies often sling off at the way Kiwis pronounce their vowels and make jokes about what they do with their sheep, but it is all hopefully in jest. There is a real affinity between these two friendly rivals and it is perfectly encapsulated in our joint ANZAC tradition.

    Here you don’t have to be born in Australia to become our Prime Minister. In the United States, Arnold Schwarzenegger could be elected as Governor of California but could not stand for President. I don’t believe in these purist traditions and I believe if you were born next door in New Zealand and you left when you were three, there should be room for you in our Parliament.

    Ludlam has lived here the best part of half a century without causing a fuss. He is not one of the truly mod Greens so instead of kicking him out let’s hold a referendum and choose another to boot out. I know who I would pick!

    From the Oz. Rules, and the Constitution are for other people are they, Richo?

  34. Arky

    Candidate eligibility

    To be a candidate you must:

    be enrolled as a voter
    be a New Zealand citizen, and
    not be disqualified from enrolling.
    The main grounds of disqualification for enrolment that could affect eligibility to be a candidate are:

    being a New Zealand citizen outside New Zealand who has not been in New Zealand within the last three years
    being in prison serving a prison sentence.
    There are exceptions to these rules, for example, in relation to public servants or members of the Defence Force who are on duty outside New Zealand, as well as members of their families.

    There are other grounds of disqualification that affect a very small number of people. [For more details see section 80 of the Electoral Act]

    Bankruptcy is not a ground for disqualification.

    If you were born overseas, you will be asked to provide evidence with your nomination that you are a New Zealand citizen (such as a certificate of citizenship or a copy of your New Zealand passport).

    ..

    Section 80:

    80 Disqualifications for registration
    (1)
    The following persons are disqualified for registration as electors:
    (a)
    a New Zealand citizen who (subject to subsection (3)) is outside New Zealand and has not been in New Zealand within the last 3 years:
    (b)
    a permanent resident of New Zealand (not being a New Zealand citizen) who (subject to subsection (3)) is outside New Zealand and has not been in New Zealand within the last 12 months:
    (c)
    a person who is detained in a hospital under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 or in a secure facility under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003, and to whom one of the following applies:
    (i)
    the person has been found by a court or a Judge to be unfit to stand trial within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, or has been acquitted on account of his or her insanity, and (in either case) is detained under an order or direction under section 24 or section 31 or section 33 of that Act or under the corresponding provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 and has been so detained for a period exceeding 3 years:
    (ii)
    the person has been found by a court, on conviction of any offence, to be mentally impaired, and is detained under an order made under section 34 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 or section 118 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985, and has been so detained for a period exceeding 3 years:
    (iii)
    the person is subject to, and has for a period exceeding 3 years been subject to, a compulsory treatment order made following an application under section 45(2) of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 or a compulsory care order made following an application under section 29(1) of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003:
    (iv)
    the person is detained under section 46 of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, and is a person to whom paragraph (d) would otherwise apply:
    (d)
    a person who is detained in a prison pursuant to a sentence of imprisonment imposed after the commencement of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010:
    (e)
    a person whose name is on the Corrupt Practices List made out for any district.
    (2)
    The Registrar of the court in which a compulsory treatment order or any order under section 24 or 34 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 is made or in which any person is convicted of a corrupt practice must, not later than the fifth day of the month following the date of the order or conviction, forward to the Electoral Commission a certificate showing—
    (a)
    the name, date of birth, place of abode, and description of the patient or offender; and
    (b)
    the particulars of the order or conviction.
    (3)
    Nothing in subsection (1)(a) or (b) applies to—
    (a)
    a person, being—
    (i)
    a public servant or a member of the Defence Force; or
    (ii)
    a head of mission or head of post within the meaning of the Foreign Affairs Act 1988, who is outside New Zealand in the course of that person’s duties; or
    (iii)
    an officer or employee of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise established by the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act 2003; or
    (b)
    a person who—
    (i)
    is accompanying a person described in subparagraph (i) or subparagraph (ii) or subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (a) who is outside New Zealand in the course of that person’s duties; and
    (ii)
    is the spouse, civil union partner, de facto partner, or child of the person referred to in subparagraph (i), or the child of the spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner of that person.
    Compare: 1956 No 107 s 42; 1980 No 29 s 13(1); 1985 No 120 s 150(1); 1988 No 34 s 12(4); 1988 No 159 s 14(1); 1988 No 160 s 12(2)
    Section 80(1)(c): substituted, on 1 September 2004, by section 51 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (2003 No 115).
    Section 80(1)(d): substituted, on 16 December 2010, by section 4 of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 (2010 No 128).
    Section 80(2): replaced, on 21 March 2017, by section 21 of the Electoral Amendment Act 2017 (2017 No 9).
    Section 80(3)(a)(iii): amended, on 1 July 2003, by section 84 of the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act 2003 (2003 No 27).
    Section 80(3)(b)(ii): substituted, on 26 April 2005, by section 7 of the Relationships (Statutory References) Act 2005 (2005 No 3).

  35. Oh come on

    you just have to show up with a tray of lamb chops and a six pack of beer

    So vegetarians and members of a certain abstemious religion are ineligible. Very civilised. We do have something to learn from the Kiwis in addition to fiscal responsibility.

  36. alexnoaholdmate

    Arky,

    There’s no need to make this more complicated than it is. The Constitution reads:

    Any person who –

    (i.) Is under any acknowledgement 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 citizen of a
    foreign power
    …shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the
    House of Representatives.

    Scott Ludlam is an Australian citizen. Granted.

    Scott Ludlam is also a citizen of a foreign power – yes, New Zealand is a foreign power, and has been regarded as such by our High Court since 1901.

    Therefore, he is ineligible to sit.

    And if you hold dual citizenship, you too would be ineligible to sit. Sorry.

    This is not a case of people twisting the meaning of the Constitution, or interpreting it in some newfangled Lefty way – like in the US, where the Supreme Court suddenly “discovered” that their Constitution, written in 1788, had included a right to gay marriage all along.

    It’s there in black and white. Scott Ludlam is ineligible to sit.

  37. Arky

    The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act came into force in New Zealand in 1947. The effect of the Statute of Westminster was to place within the control of the legislatures of the Dominions all the consequences in municipal law of the status of ‘British subject.’ Despite this, the expression ‘British subject’ remained unchanged, having like meaning to that of a ‘Commonwealth citizen’ as stated in the British Nationality Act 1948.[4] The British Nationality and New Zealand Citizenship Act was passed the same year. The Act provided for the separate status of New Zealand citizen and national and defined the status of New Zealand protected persons – as members of a class connected with any New Zealand trust territory specified by Order. Furthermore, the Act maintained that electoral law would still give ‘British subjects’ the ability to vote in New Zealand parliamentary and local government elections after twelve months’ residence.

    Likewise, the provisions as to loss of citizenship in the 1948 Act followed those of the law of the United Kingdom. The voluntary acquisition of another nationality or citizenship had no automatic effect on New Zealand citizenship. Where, however, what was acquired was a foreign nationality, its acquisition was a ground for the discretionary deprivation of New Zealand citizenship. In this situation the law corresponded more closely to that of Australia and Canada, where the acquisition of the citizenship of a foreign country could be a ground for the loss of local citizenship.[5] But it was not until the passing of the New Zealand Citizenship Act in 1977 that New Zealand legislation fully provided for New Zealand citizenship as separate from that of the ‘British subject,’ as had been defined by the British Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948.

  38. Arky

    Alex.
    Quote the part of the Australian constitution that you are referring to in full please.

  39. RobK

    Arky,
    As I understand it, NZ nearly signed up to be a state of the Australian Commonwealth and W.A. nearly didn’t, but that’s not in dispute. The Queen being common to all the States and NZ doesn’t mean NZ is not a foreign power.

  40. Arky

    Of could you link to the full document and say which section it is?

  41. duncanm

    Arky… I agree with your point, but I don’t care.

    If Ludlam was a conservative, they’d be out for his blood.

  42. Oh come on

    Agree with Alex. An exemption for Ludlam ‘because it’s only New Zealand’ is a pretty weak argument. New Zealand deserves recognition as a fully sovereign nation independent of our own. By all means, make the argument that it’s ridiculous that an Australian citizen with another nationality is ineligible to be a federal MP. Perhaps the constitution needs amending. But special pleading for New Zealand seems odd.

  43. Roger

    New Zealand may be our neighbour geographically and culturally but that doesn’t mean their interests and Australia’s will always coinhere. Therefore New Zealand citizens cannot sit in our parliament.

    Ludlam’s case may seem to be splitting hairs, but the Constitutional principle must be maintained – you cannot hold formal allegiance to a foreign power and sit in the parliament of Australia.

    Informal allegiance one might get away with; I’m looking at you, Sam Dastyari.

  44. stackja

    1975 – Lionel Murphy again! Why the change?

  45. Arky

    So which allegiance would you consider more dangerous in an Australian representative or senator:
    To Islam.
    Or to NZ?
    Which one is more “foriegn”?
    Be careful what you define as foreign.
    Because it defines who you are and what you will become.
    I will leave it there.

  46. stackja

    Arky
    #2442644, posted on July 16, 2017 at 6:52 pm

    Before 1901 is foreign.

  47. alexnoaholdmate

    Of could you link to the full document and say which section it is?

    Sure thing. It’s Section 44.

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html

  48. a happy little debunker

    Apologies for talking outta my arse!

  49. alexnoaholdmate

    So which allegiance would you consider more dangerous in an Australian representative or senator:
    To Islam.
    Or to NZ?
    Which one is more “foriegn”?

    Arky, Jesus.

    It’s not about what you or I regard as “dangerous.”

    It’s not about whether an knife-wielding Islamist is more or less of a threat than a Kiwi.

    It’s about what’s written in the Constitution. That’s all.

    The Constitution says this. Therefore –

    Be careful what you define as foreign.
    Because it defines who you are and what you will become.

    Again: it’s not about how you or I define “foreign” – it’s what the Constitution says.

    I’m having a hard time understanding why you’re casting personal aspersions at people for merely pointing out what’s written in the bloody document. I didn’t write the damn thing myself. If you disagree with aspects of it, I don’t see why that’s my problem.

  50. john constantine

    Their richo also believes that people owing their first loyalty to commintern, or international socialism or transnational greenism can have a place in Australian parliment.

    Let us look at bishop, her first loyalty is the the Great Cartels that do transnational decision-making, look at the damage the country suffers as she pours tribute money and volunteers War Reparations to the Cartels.

    Need to strap politicians into truth seats and inject them with truth serum to find out if they support Australia, or support corrupt foreign Cartels.

  51. Arky

    Up until the 80s we were all British subjects.
    I am pretty sure no court in the 40’s. 50’s, 60’s, 70’s would have ruled NZ or Britain as “foreign”.
    There are no cases, but there must have been many kiwis or Poms on Parliament.
    No one took them to court to challenge their eligibility.
    So in 1970 I wasn’t foreign, but now I am?
    Bullshit.
    I never considered any of the Aussies living in Enzed as foreign.
    You are all talking complete shit.

  52. stackja

    Arky
    #2442651, posted on July 16, 2017 at 7:07 pm
    Define foreign.

    of, from, in, or characteristic of a country or language other than one’s own.
    Non-Australian.

  53. Winter has come

    What about all the legislation he blocked along the way. Max punitive damages your Honour!

  54. Maurice Miner

    Sinc, I have been posting here for years as “Kaboom”, and as a result of HDD crashes, I have been utterly unable to post as “Kaboom”, so I have invoked my alter-ego, “Maurice Miner”. It seems that this nomenclature has also been kept in eternal moderation.

    Have I completely lost my posting privileges for some obscure reason, or is this just a technical hiccough?

    Seriously, it’s as difficult as trying to get back on the Blair site! Please let me know.

    [Technical hiccup AFAIK. Sinc]

  55. Roger

    Up until the 80s we were all British subjects.

    1949, actually.

  56. Marcus Classis

    Just make teh greenscumbag an offer he understands.

    He pays back every cent, or goes for a helicopter ride.

  57. alexnoaholdmate

    Define foreign.

    In terms of eligibility to sit in Parliament – which is all this discussion is about – the Constitution’s definition seems perfectly adequate to me.

    All I’ve done, Arky, is present to you the written evidence – what the document actually says. I offered no interpretation or opinion of my own. If you wish it said or meant something else, that’s your prerogative.

    If you want to blame me for what’s in a document written over a century ago, you can fuck right off.

  58. Arky

    Not 1949.
    1984, actually.

    Australia retained the status of British subject until the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1984 removed Part II of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 effective on 1 May 1987. Between 1 January 1983 and 1 May 1987 a British citizen and an Australian citizen were both British subjects under Australian law, but not under United Kingdom law.[5] The term encompassed all citizens of countries listed in

  59. alexnoaholdmate

    You are all talking complete shit.

    Because we wrote the Constitution, had it enacted, then sat on the High Court and took part in the judgements that determined what constiutes “foreign”, according to that document?

    Wow. What can’t Catallaxians do?

  60. stackja

    According to Venona, Enzed Clayton was a KGB agent.

  61. Arky

    In terms of eligibility to sit in Parliament – which is all this discussion is about – the Constitution’s definition seems perfectly adequate to me.

    ..
    Where does the constitution define “foreign power”?
    It didn’t.
    Later courts did.
    As I stated, I don’t think Curtis prior to the 19$0’s would have defined it that way.
    ..

    If you want to blame me for what’s in a document written over a century ago, you can fuck right off.

    ..
    You can either discuss it civilly or likewise, fuck off yourself.
    You might find the exercise of defining foreign at different times useful in order to understand precisely who you are.
    That is why it is important.
    Not because I can’t stand for parliament despite serving in the Australia Army.

  62. Arky

    Because we wrote the Constitution

    ..
    Who is “we”.
    Who are you?
    You don’t even know yourself.

  63. Habib

    Arky, we have a substantial surplus of homegrown stinky hippies, commie loons and ecofascists, we sure as fuck don’t need to import any. No punishment goes far enough for these swine, they are our enemy, and must be bitch-slapped to extinction. Using lawfare against them is schadenfraude on stilts, I reckon every person and business who loses money or amenity through the actions of this feral filth should litigate them until their kidneys explode.

  64. alexnoaholdmate

    Where does the constitution define “foreign power”?
    It didn’t.
    Later courts did.

    Yes. Courts who determine – rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly – what the Constitution means. You disagree with their interpretation. That’s fine.

    But you’ve attacked me personally merely for linking to the damn document. It’s not my fault the High Court and you don’t see eye-to-eye.

    You can either discuss it civilly or likewise, fuck off yourself.

    Says the man who just claimed above that all those who disagree with him are – and I quote – “talking shit.”

    You might find the exercise of defining foreign at different times useful in order to understand precisely who you are.

    I think you and I would probably come to the same definition of foreign, in a general context. But we aren’t discussing a general context – we’re discussing the constitutional meaning of the term.

    Pull your head in, mate. You’re acting like a fuckwit to those who love you.

  65. Sinclair Davidson

    Arky – Ludlam, for constitutional purposes, is a foreigner and not eligible to sit in the Australian Parliament or to make laws for Australians.

    Now I have much sympathy for your argument. Subjects of her Britannic majesty Elizabeth II should never be foreigners in Australia and the founders of the Australian Commonwealth certainly never intended that they would be. But there you have it.

  66. Habib

    And Richo, eat shit and die. Pity you were never banged up for Alpine Offset.

  67. Arky

    Christ you are a dickhead.
    You didn’t write the constitution.

    Parkes was born in Canley (now a suburb of Coventry) in Warwickshire, England, and christened in the nearby village of Stoneleigh.

    ..
    Your constitution was written by men born in England.
    Most of them came to this part of the world later than my family.
    They wouldn’t be eligible to sit in parliament under the current wrong interpretation of the constitution.
    Understand that.
    The people who wrote your constitution would not be eligible to do so under the current wrong interpretation.

  68. alexnoaholdmate

    The people who wrote your constitution would not be eligible to do so under the current wrong interpretation.

    All that matters is what the High Court has determined “foreigner” means, constitutionally speaking. If you disagree with their interpretation, that’s fine.

    But that’s not my problem, and I still fail to see why you’re getting angry at people here for pointing out what the High Court has ruled.

  69. Arky

    Griffith was the principle author of the constitution.
    .

    Griffith was born in Merthyr Tydfil, Wales, the younger son of the Rev. Edward Griffith, a Congregational minister and his wife, Mary, second daughter of Peter Walker

  70. Sinclair Davidson

    Sue not AEC.

  71. alexnoaholdmate

    PS I certainly agree with you, Arky, when you say it’s ridiculous that someone who has served in our armed forces might nevertheless be ineligible to sit in Parliament because they hold dual citizenship.

    If you volunteer to defend the nation, you should have a right to represent the nation.

    But again, you and I don’t make the rules.

  72. Arky

    Alex, I’m not angry.
    It’s just my style of writing.
    But I think it is an important topic that intersects with some of my interests.
    I withdraw the “dickhead” comment.

  73. stackja

    What is wrong with Australians voting for Australians to represent them in Australian Parliament?

  74. Sinclair Davidson

    Following from Arky’s point – why is that Ludlam – a joint New Zealand citizen – can’t be a parliamentarian but Soviet agents of influence can be MPs?

  75. Rob MW

    Update: Gavin Putland, in comments, points to the Common Informers Act of 1975 as effectively repealing section 46. Looking at that Act it seems that section 46 was established as an incentive mechanism to check up on the status of sitting politicians. Now that the £100 incentive fee has been removed we can have foreigners sitting in our Parliament for 9 years before anyone bothers to check up on them.

    Shit, and here I was thinking that the Constitution could only be amended by referendum. So the Commonwealth has enacted and Act that (maybe) amends the Constitution without a referendum, really ?

    At least Hawke hopped on a plane to England the get the Brits to pass the Australia Act then bring it back home so good old Bob could, in effect, amend the Constitution without a referendum.

    Me thinks that without the amendment being cite in the Constitution the Constitution prevails and the Act purportedly amending the Constitution will fall.

  76. Sinclair Davidson

    Rob MW – the section itself allows the parliament to legislate.

  77. Oh come on

    Subjects of her Britannic majesty Elizabeth II should never be foreigners in Australia and the founders of the Australian Commonwealth certainly never intended that they would be.

    This is absolutely true. Unfortunately, our FFs weren’t the brightest when it comes to FFs. The Yank FFs foresaw exactly what internal forces would be fatally corrosive to the Republic and did their utmost to design a precise, simple and timeless founding document to counteract these forces. It’s pretty astonishing that this, and the nation that sprung up around it, might yet prevail. Our FFs couldn’t even foresee a time when the document they wrote wouldn’t be interpreted without reference to their intentions.

  78. stackja

    Sinclair Davidson
    #2442698, posted on July 16, 2017 at 7:53 pm
    Following from Arky’s point – why is that Ludlam – a joint New Zealand citizen – can’t be a parliamentarian but Soviet agents of influence can be MPs?

    Ask the ALP. Evatt was soft on USSR.

  79. candy

    It’s the hypocrisy of the Greens that’s alarming. Sarah H-Y gets no bad press for scooping $5000 of taxypayer’s money similar amount to Bronwyn Bishop, but BB is demonised.
    Richard Di Natole pays starvation wages to his child carers but cutting penalties is the devil’s work according to him.
    And this Ludlam chap expects all to be forgiven and come back as a senator but badmouthed Bob Day.

    Serves them right if half their voters turn to Labor, but Greens are the elites, and normal rules don’t apply. Plus ABC and Fairfax journos are all pretty much Greens so no criticism will never ever come from those quarters.

  80. Habib

    I hope it’s not being implied that Gaia Boy ever served in the ADF. To enlist you have to be an Australian citizen as well, I’m unsure if dual nationality is permitted.

  81. Boambee John

    So that change was in 1975.

    I wonder which member of the Whitlam government was potentially under threat to cause the change?

  82. Haidee

    7.49pm There’s nothing wrong with Australians voting for Australians to represent them in the Australian parliament.

    I’m anti dual-citizenship.

  83. Boambee John

    Zulu at 1816

    Richo omits to mention that this started when Labor and the Greens went after a Coalition member 20 years ago.

    Wonder what he said at that time?

  84. Jumpnmcar

    Anyone know if Gillard or Abbott crossed the renunciation i’s and t’s ?

  85. Oh come on

    I think DL’s getting at Lee Rhiannon. Speaking of, we saw a red split in her green armour recently. What was it she said? Something like ‘I don’t think we should have a problem letting young people in our party talk about socialism’. Fuck off, commie.

  86. Sinclair Davidson

    Anyone know if Gillard or Abbott crossed the renunciation i’s and t’s ?

    I don’t know about Ms Gillard but Tony Abbott posted something (on Twitter I think) from the UK High Commission showing that he renounced his UK citizenship in 1993.

  87. Arky

    Habib
    #2442709, posted on July 16, 2017 at 8:01 pm
    I hope it’s not being implied that Gaia Boy ever served in the ADF. To enlist you have to be an Australian citizen as well, I’m unsure if dual nationality is permitted.

    ..
    No you don’t have to renounce Enzed citizenship to serve in the Australian Army.
    How many Kiwi NCOs in Army?
    Australian Army is full of kiwis.

  88. Rob MW

    “Until the Parliament otherwise provides, …….”

    Rob MW – the section itself allows the parliament to legislate.

    Sorry Sinc, I missed that bit. Looks like Ludlam will only get a peerage spanking probably after a good few Cocktails

  89. Tel

    Gavin Putland, in comments, points to the Common Informers Act of 1975 as effectively repealing section 46.

    No, the act REPLACES section 46.

    Now that the £100 incentive fee has been removed we can have foreigners sitting in our Parliament for 9 years before anyone bothers to check up on them.

    Completely wrong, there’s a provision for a $200 per day incentive INSTEAD OF the £100 incentive fee. If you think this is too small, don’t blame the Act of 1975, instead blame money printing and inflation.

    Anyhow, nothing in that law says this should be the entire penalty. Parliament itself is free to extract additional repayments as it may see fit. This Act is merely a determination of the size of incentive payment available for anyone who should bring suit.

  90. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Australian Army is full of kiwis.

    Helen Clarke scrapped all RNZAF fighter and trainer aircraft, in 2001 – Ronnie RAAF picked up a few extra pilots that way.

  91. stackja

    Boambee John
    #2442710, posted on July 16, 2017 at 8:02 pm
    So that change was in 1975.

    I wonder which member of the Whitlam government was potentially under threat to cause the change?

    Lionel Murphy probably knew.

  92. Eyrie

    Lee Rhiannon brings to mind that pock marked wall, again.

  93. Boambee John

    stackja,

    Lionel might have been on the High Court by then, though he could have initiated the change before his appointment.

  94. Eyrie

    Currently NZ citizens cannot join the ADF. The question of NZ citizens rights in Aus depends on when you came here. This is sufficiently murky and changing that Mrs Eyrie is seeking dual NZ/Aus citizenship.
    ANZAC is being cancelled!

  95. Tel

    So that change was in 1975.

    Yes, Australia shifted to decimal currency in 1966 and then they realized that in the Constitution was a specific mention of £100 which was no longer legal tender, and therefore impossible to pay. This was changed over to $200 by an Act of Parliament. No big deal.

    In most other laws they use “penalty units” in order to adjust for inflation.

    That reminds me… is there an historic record of the monetary value of “penalty units” because it seems like the measure of long term inflation that is most difficult to jigger?

  96. stackja

    Boambee John
    #2442737, posted on July 16, 2017 at 8:37 pm
    stackja,

    Lionel might have been on the High Court by then, though he could have initiated the change before his appointment.

    And the hidden Murphy documents to be released when?

  97. Oh come on

    No, Tel. The constitutional stipulation awards one hundred quid for every day an ineligible member sits in parliament. This was clearly supposed to be a cripplingly expensive deterrent, despite the amount sounding a bit like Dr Evil’s one million dollar ransom demand these days. The intent can be seen in the provision that this money can be obtained from the ineligible MP by “any person who sues for it in any court of competent jurisdiction”. The 1975 act is far less punishing. The ruinous 100 quid/day penalty is replaced with a relatively tiny $200 fine plus a $200/day penalty for every day the ineligible MP sits in parliament *after* a suit is brought against them under the act – which no suit has been. So the most Ludlam could be pinged for under the act is $200. That wouldn’t have been a ruinous penalty in 1975, let alone today.

  98. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    And the hidden Murphy documents to be released when?

    IIRC, 25th of this month.

  99. Kim Howard

    Scott Ludlum should pay back any monies he has earned from the Australian tax payer
    the candidates in WA should rightly sue Mr Ludlum
    The points your are missing are , who is auditing our elected representatives ( and the answer is not the party`s involved )
    Also you bring in the Australian Constitution to show this fraud yet when its about our Australian Government signing up to foreign agreements with the UN or the EU , Sinc you do not bring it up or even site the Australian Constitution where its traitorous to sign up to a foreign power .
    Scott Ludlum should get what he deserves a disgusting person in my opinion , meanwhile our Australian Government is not our Government because our media will not site the Constitution , just look at taxes and excises many are unconstitutional yet nothing from the media and disappointingly not even from the Cat

  100. stackja

    Zulu Kilo Two Alpha
    #2442747, posted on July 16, 2017 at 8:45 pm
    And the hidden Murphy documents to be released when?

    IIRC, 25th of this month.

    And the MSM will have a ‘bigger’ story to tell of course, Murphy no longer ‘big’ news.

  101. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Federal parliament’s presiding officers have approved the publication of secret documents relating to the conduct of the late High Court judge Lionel Murphy.

    The “Class A” documents have been kept secret for 30 years and contain a significant amount of personal information about Murphy, an attorney-general in the Whitlam government and former NSW senator, including information that “potentially attains to illegal behaviour”.

    Less highly classified “Class B” documents made public last year show the 1986 parliamentary commission of inquiry into Murphy had been poised to investigate allegations that he offered police officer Don Thomas a highly paid job with the AFP in exchange for his help in a case Thomas was prosecuting.

    The inquiry was established to determine if Murphy’s conduct amounted to misbehaviour but was wound up after it was revealed he had a terminal illness.

    Senate President Stephen Parry said the clerks of the lower and upper houses would advise people named in the Class A documents and relatives of any ­dead people that they were due to be released.

    They are to be published electronically on July 24.

    From the Oz of June 23rd – I was only a day out!

  102. Procrustes

    Arky, I’m glad the Australian army has plenty of kiwis in it, but you keep flogging a dead horse about what is in the Aust constitution and what anyone thinks makes sense. The constitution is clear on Ludlum’s ineligibility. The fact this is adversely affecting a Greenscumfilthcryptomarxistscumbag in this instance is a cause for great rejoicing across the land.

  103. Habib

    Looked it up Arky, depends on when they jumped the ditch. If after 2001 they’ve got to be granted permament residence. I’ve struck more poms than kiwis in my time in,

  104. calli

    He knew.

    Our Constitution means something or it means nothing.

    Book ‘im, Danno.

  105. stackja

    Zulu Kilo Two Alpha
    #2442750, posted on July 16, 2017 at 8:48 pm
    Less highly classified “Class B” documents made public last year show the 1986 parliamentary commission of inquiry into Murphy had been poised to investigate allegations that he offered police officer Don Thomas a highly paid job with the AFP in exchange for his help in a case Thomas was prosecuting.

    And the rest of the ‘a case Thomas was prosecuting’ story?

  106. Baldrick

    Look, it’s fairly simple. You can’t sit as a member in the Australian Parliament if you hold foreign citizenship.
    I don’t give a toss if it’s New Zealand, New Caledonia or Papua New Guinea.

  107. Arky

    calli
    #2442754, posted on July 16, 2017 at 8:58 pm
    He knew.

    Our Constitution means something or it means nothing.

    Book ‘im, Danno.

    ..
    Could you do something for me Calli? Define who is eligible to be an Australian citizen, and explain why.
    I’m genuine interested in who you think should be defined as Australian, and on what basis you think that is founded.
    I know who should be defined as, say, Japanese, and so I imagine do the Japanese. I would imagine they are clear upon what grounds a person is defined as either Japanese, or foreign.
    What makes an Australian?

  108. alexnoaholdmate

    Sinc – just cause this seems to be the thread you’re paying attention to right now:

    Can you please review the video Rafe has put up in the thread underneath this one?

    There is a disturbing moment at 23.42 where a famous Nazi propaganda image of a hook-nosed J e w is overlaid on the screen, while the voiceover discusses how certain groups now control the media and Hollywood.

    The original at YouTube has attracted a lot of unsavoury comments for its… subtext too, just in case you think I’m making mountains out of molehills. If the videomaker didn’t intend it to be an anti-Semitic statement, it has certainly been adopted as one.

  109. Arky

    Baldrick
    #2442761, posted on July 16, 2017 at 9:04 pm
    Look, it’s fairly simple. You can’t sit as a member in the Australian Parliament if you hold foreign citizenship.
    I don’t give a toss if it’s New Zealand, New Caledonia or Papua New Guinea.

    ..
    Why?

  110. stackja

    Records of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry
    The Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (the commission) was established in May 1986 under the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act 1986 (the Act) to inquire into allegations concerning the conduct of then Justice of the High Court, the Hon Lionel Keith Murphy.

  111. calli

    Could you do something for me Calli? Define who is eligible to be an Australian citizen, and explain why.

    Were you born here?

    If not, have you applied for citizenship?

    If citizenship is granted…yee hah!

    Do you hold dual citizenship? No problem. We will still love youse.

    Do you hold dual citizenship and wish to enter Parliament? Bugger! Time to decide. Hmmm…what to do?

    I knows! I will pretend ignorance and obtain lots of influence and AU$ and proclaim “I dinna know!” like a tourist trying to bring in a suitcase of hideous “food” from south east asia.

  112. stackja

    The Australian December 20, 2016

    Murphy, the reformist ­attorney-general of the Whitlam government, had come unstuck two years earlier with the public airing of claims that he tried to ­influence court proceedings relating to his “little mate”, Sydney solicitor Morgan Ryan.

    In the event, one of the greatest judicial scandals since federation was left with no conclusion, the commission being abandoned when it was revealed Murphy had been diagnosed with cancer and had only months to live.

    Documents made public yesterday show the commission had been poised to investigate explosive allegations that Murphy had offered police officer Don Thomas a highly-paid job with the Australian Federal Police, in exchange for his assistance in a case Thomas was prosecuting and Ryan, an ­associate of crime king Abe Saffron, was acting for the accused.

  113. Sinclair Davidson

    alexnoaholdmate – yes. Very unfortunate. It is stupidity like this that undermines otherwise good argument.

  114. Arky

    Calli.
    Being born in the territory of Australia makes you an Australian?
    That’s the definition?

  115. Gab

    calli
    #2442776, posted on July 16, 2017 at 9:23 pm

    LOl. Well said, Calli. Love your style.

  116. Children born in Australia after 20 August 1986: ➢ Are not automatically granted Australian citizenship. … ➢ If neither parent is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident of Australia at the time of birth, the child is a temporary resident.May 15, 2014

  117. Arky

    According to law, being born in Australia does not make you Australian.

  118. Arky

    If citizenship is granted…yee hah!

    ..
    So by this reasoning a person is defined as Australian or not based on being granted citizenship by the government.
    This seems to me an unsatisfactory definition, as your identification as Australian is now based on weather or not the government of Australia at any point in the future, whatever form that may take, decides.
    Do you want your identification as an Australian to be based on government fiat?
    If the government decides that you, Calli are no longer an a Australian will that make you not Australian?
    Do you agree with me or disagree that that is a poor definition?

  119. calli

    According to law, being born in Australia does not make you Australian.

    I knows I am Australian. My kitchen sometimes does a special smoking ceremony.

    Mr. Muscle sorts it out.

  120. Gab

    Since 20 August 1986, a person born in Australia acquires Australian citizenship by birth only if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or permanent resident or after living the first ten years of their life in Australia regardless of their parent’s citizenship status (see Australian nationality law).

  121. Arky

    I knows I am Australian

    ..
    That us my question.
    What makes you an Australian?
    Why are you an Australian?
    What features of you, makes you an Australian?

  122. calli

    Why are you so worried about this Arky? Are you Scott Ludlum? Or my brother-in-law?

  123. Arky

    “us”
    Oh god. Now I am typing in a Kiwi accent!

  124. Arky

    calli
    #2442795, posted on July 16, 2017 at 9:45 pm
    Why are you so worried about this Arky? Are you Scott Ludlum? Or my brother-in-law?

    ..
    Don’t you find it interesting?

  125. Arky

    Forget about the Greens idiot.

  126. Sinclair Davidson

    Forget about the Greens idiot.

    If only we could.

  127. calli

    Don’t you find it interesting?

    Immensely. Why do we have Nations? Why do we have laws? Are some laws good and are others bad? Who decides?

  128. Gab

    Senator Penny Wong born in Malaysia,and born a Malaysian citizen-Has she officially renounced Malaysian citizenship, and can we see proof?

    While she moved to Australia in 1976,that would not have caused the loss of her Malaysian citizenship.
    Many Malaysians who later in life took up citizenship of other countries assumed that by doing so Malaysian citizenship was lost automatically, but this is not the case.

    There is ,provided for in the Malaysian Constitution and arising laws a process which requires citizens who wish to renounce their citizenship to make a formal application to do so.It is up to the Malaysian Government to determine if the application should be accepted.

    If the Government determines that the application is to be accepted, then the applicant is issued a formal notice of that fact,with a copy of his or her Malaysian birth certificate marked with words in Malay and/or English ,”No longer a citizen of Malaysia (paraphrase)”.

    None of this has ever been provided the public in the case of Penny Wong. Indeed the question has never been put. We are simply expected to accept that Wong is not a citizen of Malaysia, despite the facts.

  129. David Brewer

    Thanks Gavin Putland!

    Incredible that Brandeis would raise Section 46 without checking whether the Parliament had indeed “otherwise provided”.

    However, I wonder if Ludlam really is off the hook. It seems to me that the person that initiated this petition in 2014 might well be able to pick up $200 for every day Ludlam has sat since, plus $200.

    For Section 3.1 of the Common Informers act says:

    (a) $200 in respect of his or her having so sat on or before the day on which the originating process in the suit is served on him or her; and

    (b) $200 for every day, subsequent to that day, on which he or she is proved in the suit to have so sat.

    The decision would presumably turn on whether that petition could be regarded as an “originating process”. Any legal eagles around here who can give us an expert view?

  130. Arky

    Why do we have Nations?

    ..
    Usually because a people define themselves as a Nation, because of shared language and custom.

  131. Arky

    In fact I might argue, that if you have to define nationality based on a complex set of legalistic rules, and when you ask a citizen of said nation what makes them a citizen, and they don’t know, that nation really isn’t one at all.

  132. Sinclair Davidson

    Gab – we had this discussion when the new SA senator took her seat. Many countries operate an automatic loss of citizenship system. So when I lived in SA I had to apply for permission to not be deported because I travelled on a UK passport and not an SA passport. When I applied for Australian citizenship I automatically lost my SA citizenship but not my UK citizenship. I can always regain my SA citizenship by simply returning to South Africa and applying for it back. I imagine that many people would be in the same situation as myself.

  133. Gab

    It appears that Malaysia doesn’t operate that way, Sinclair, and one has to apply to revoke their citizenship. So does Wong have dual citizenship?

  134. Sinclair Davidson

    Really funny if she did – but I suspect the major parties would have checked up on that sort of thing after the 1999 case. I’m surprised that the Parliament doesn’t have a unit that actually asks for proof of renunciation for foreign born MPs.

  135. calli

    Nothing surprises me Doomlord. But then, I’m old and a little bit wickedish.

  136. Sinclair Davidson

    Well yes – nothing should surprise us. But it’s always nice to discover that our Canberran overlords can be dumber than even we expect.

  137. Mark A

    Arky
    #2442808, posted on July 16, 2017 at 10:15 pm

    Usually because a people define themselves as a Nation, because of shared language and custom.

    It’s also a tribal thing, line up a bunch of people of European decent but different nationalities, and provided they don’t have too many foreign genes, I can tell what nationality they are just by looking at them. Up to 90% accuracy.

    Same for Africans.
    Facial characteristic betray them every time.

    If you travel a lot and are observant, it’s easy.

  138. Notafan

    Don’t know if it was mentioned upthread but the law re birth was changed in 1986 because of a problem with anchor babies.

    Nice way for illegals to get residency so the law was changed.

  139. Arky

    I can tell what nationality they are just by looking at them. Up to 90% accuracy.

    ..
    Or with the French just by odour.

  140. calli

    Mark A. It’s all in the vowels. Well, in English that is.

    Fersh

    Fush

    Fish

    And don’t get me started on the Chups.

    But we loves them. Just don’t try to sneak into Parliament and try to boss us around. We have enough home grown ones.

  141. Habib

    But it’s always nice to discover that our Canberran overlords can be dumber than even we expect. Unpossible. I have very high expectations of spectacular stupidity, imbecility on a super-nova level, freezer door licking level lackwittedness, dunderheadeness of such magnitude it has to be measured in cubic kilometres, fuckwittery that makes pissed bogans lighting their own farts and setting fire to the curtains seem like quantum physicists……..

  142. calli

    Whoops. Forgot the

    Fesh

  143. I’m surprised that the Parliament doesn’t have a unit that actually asks for proof of renunciation for foreign born MPs.

    I’m shocked and surprised that the AEC cautions prospective candidates in saying You cannot nominate for the Senate or the House of Representatives if you are disqualified by section 44 of the Constitution and have not remedied that disqualification before nomination.
    …and then does nothing about asking for proof of renunciation for foreign born MPs.

    It’s just like collusion – AEC does nothing, Turnbull does nothing, LNP does nothing – yet a dual citizen has been in the Senate for 9 years and no-one does anything!
    Thank heavens for the bloke who unmasked Ludlum.

  144. Mark A

    calli
    #2442823, posted on July 16, 2017 at 10:44 pm

    Mark A. It’s all in the vowels. Well, in English that is.

    you prolly aimed that missive at Arky? Non?

  145. Gab

    LOL Don’t hold back, Habib. Tell us what you really think.

  146. Mark A

    Old School Conservative
    #2442827, posted on July 16, 2017 at 10:47 pm

    Thank heavens for the bloke who unmasked Ludlum.

    Is he going to get the reward but?

  147. Sinclair Davidson

    I have very high expectations of spectacular stupidity, imbecility on a super-nova level, freezer door licking level lackwittedness, dunderheadeness of such magnitude it has to be measured in cubic kilometres, fuckwittery that makes pissed bogans lighting their own farts and setting fire to the curtains seem like quantum physicists……..

    And yet … we can still be pleasantly surprised.

  148. Notafan

    Maybe the AEC expects politicians to behave with honour.

    Is the 2014 petition a smoking gun for a deliberate fraud?

    Recent revelations suggest the Greens operate internally like the Politburo.

    Trouble is we don’t know who Stalin is.

  149. sisypus

    Has anybody checked up on Hinch,Corman, etc.?

  150. Oh come on

    Plenty of Kiwis don’t sound like Helen Clark and you’d have to be listening out – or for a while – for an accent to pick it.

  151. Habib

    And yet … we can still be pleasantly surprised.

    Only by a meteroite strike during a sitting period.

  152. Habib

    Meteorite. With a core of tungsten and radioactive cobalt, which renders the site uninhabitable for several centuries.

  153. Jannie

    Arky, its very true that Kiwis and Ozzies are cut from the same cloth, and believe in much the same things. That’s why they automatically have residence rights, its assumed they will just fit it, and they do. Nobody complains much about the Kiwis, except about the friggin ABs, they are generally nice people.

    But this is a technicality to get at the Greens for being stupid. They broke the rules, and they should take the consequences. Its nothing against NZ. If Ludlam had been born is SA, England, France or Argentina it would make no difference.

  154. EvilElvis

    So, Arky.

    What’s missing from your life? Your whole beef here seems to be that because your family has been floating around the country for 155 years you think you should be an honorary, bonafide Aussie despite not being born here or being able to channel your angry inner kiwi into getting citizenship?

  155. Arky

    You are not worth replying too.
    You haven’t read my previous posts with any attention at all.
    I am an Australian citizen.
    The argument, that I state again for other readers, not you, because you don’t pay attention, is the constitution and the intention of those who wrote it.
    Which is obviously not to exclude dual citizens of other British countries, because in so doing they would have excluded themselves.

  156. Mark A

    Arky
    #2442850, posted on July 16, 2017 at 11:44 pm

    Which is obviously not to exclude dual citizens of other British countries, because in so doing they would have excluded themselves.

    Not sure but I think you got it wrong.
    Before federation and constitution there were no ‘Australian’ citizens, therefor the rule applies
    only to subsequent parliamentarians not the first lot.

  157. EvilElvis

    I will admit, I skim a bit mate. That’s a lot of shit to get through in one sitting I can assure you. But your concise response above has saved a lot of rereading. Thank you.

    So, perhaps the intention of the writers of the constitution was actually to allow exclusion of people like themselves according to the will of the Australian people, as Australia became its own self governed nation. The Commonwealth remains only as a ceremonial and sentimental link to our past as a British governed colony. Maybe with the birth of the federation they thought we, the Australian people, could decide who would be allowed to be a citizen of this nation and not dictated to by a foreign power of which Britain would then become. There are still soft stances to people from other Commonwealth countries in regards to gaining citizenship.

  158. Arky

    Before federation and constitution there were no ‘Australian’ citizens, therefor the rule applies
    only to subsequent parliamentarians not the first lot

    ..
    So you believe they wrote a constitution excluding dual citizens, and then rescinded their British citizenships before resuming their political careers?
    I’m not going to research it now, because I’m done for the day, but I’ll take a wager the first few Australian PMs were British citizens as were most of their cabinets.
    I would wager a large number of politicians for decades were dual nationals and no one gave a shit or thought to take it to court, until the 1989s.

  159. Arky

    Elvis, who would you believe more closely represents you as an Australian, taking into account your heritage, customs, language and beliefs.
    A Kiwi, Canadian or South African who has lived in Australia their whole life, but forgot to renounce, or didn’t even know they had, dual citizenship.
    Or:
    Someone who worked for the KGB throughout the seventies and believes in a single global one party dictatorship of the proletariate by any means,
    Or:
    Some dude six months out of Syria sponsored into this country by the Muslim brotherhood, who speaks no English, believes in the Caliphate and Sharia law, but who has filled in all the paperwork correctly?
    Because two of those examples can sit in the Senate, and the other now can’t.

  160. Arky

    An more to the point, who do you think the men who wrote that part of the constitution would have wanted excluded out of the three examples given above?

  161. Arky

    Or let me put it another way.
    Over the last fifty years you have had your country slowly redefined out from under you, and you weren’t paying attention enough to understand how it was done.

  162. EvilElvis

    Arky, I partially agree with the premise you are presenting but it’s confusing several different issues here.

    The rule of law which should be guided through the constitution does not allow a person to be elected to Parliament who holds dual citizenship.

    An unfortunate result of the constitution also means, as you’ve pointed out, that some of the world’s lowest scum can become citizens and stand for election. Herein lies the same faith and goodwill in the Commonwealth culture that allowed the British authors to exclude themself from our nation as foreigner’s. They’ve given the Australian people the ability to not allow citizenship or to not vote for this scum. The fact that politicians and bureaucrats have manipulated certain areas of policy and our lives so that the two groups you mention can stand to be elected is the real problem.

  163. EvilElvis

    Wasn’t Dastardly Sam also a dualie?…

  164. Arky

    The rule of law which should be guided through the constitution does not allow a person to be elected to Parliament who holds dual citizenship.

    ..
    Constitution doesn’t mention dual citizenship.
    It says allegiance to a foreign power.
    Who do you think the British citizens who drafted our constitution meant by foreign powers?
    Themselves?

  165. Mark A

    EvilElvis
    #2442863, posted on July 17, 2017 at 12:28 am

    Wasn’t Dastardly Sam also a dualie?…

    As far as I remember he asserted to have had sorted the matter, but nothing concrete, like a document presented by Abbott, has been sighted yet.

    I have my serious doubts about him sitting in parliament legally, but I’m sure he’ll get away with it.

  166. Oh come on

    An more to the point, who do you think the men who wrote that part of the constitution would have wanted excluded out of the three examples given above?

    Arks I think most people here see eye-to-eye with you here but it’s not germane to Ludlam’s case. This is a constitutional matter. The approach of considering what the authors of the constitution would have wanted when interpreting this document was explicitly rejected by the HC in 1920.

  167. EvilElvis

    Yep, allegiance to foreign power. When you use that constitutional term as a guide to make law, the dual citizenship comes into play and is ruled out in this case. If you have dual citizenship how do we know where your allegiance lies?

    I don’t think the author’s had any intentions of becoming Australian senators Arky, maybe they had enough foresight to allow the new nation to decide who and under what circumstances citizenship is granted.

    The fact the system is bastardised now though is not their fault.

  168. Robber Baron

    The decision Scott Ryan makes will ensure his name goes down in history. But will he make the right decision?

    If he wants to be as forgettable as the hundreds of ministers, he can let this Greens liar off the hook, but, if he wants to go down in history as a complete bastard, he should bankrupt the Greens liar.

    Ryan is a major supporter of Maol. I think with a track record like that we will be disappointed with his judgement.

  169. struth

    Although you could never really see it happening, the fact of the matter is that Australia and New Zealand are different countries and therefore could declare war on each other.
    They can drift with political alliances well apart from each other and head in any direction as separate nations.
    They now are separate sovereign nations although born of a common ancestor.
    Therefore Ludlum holds citizenship in another sovereign nation.
    That is foreign.
    Foreign in this case doesn’t mean culturally or a certain degree of separation.
    It means another country.
    New Zealand is another country.

  170. Mark A

    struth
    #2442894, posted on July 17, 2017 at 2:16 am

    Although you could never really see it happening, the fact of the matter is that Australia and New Zealand are different countries

    The best and worst fights happen within the family, NZ does and did a lot of things we could object to.
    Not important enough to go war about of course but you never know what’s in the future.

    They may well decide to go with China, considering their obligations to some Pacific islands and of the future actions of those islands with China can bring about?

    Who knows the future?

  171. stackja

    Lionel Murphy needed to change law because?

    COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 44

    Disqualification

    Any person who:
    (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

  172. Notafan

    Seems a sloppy argument to me.

    It doesn’t matter how close New Zealand is, or how similar our cultural heritage is, it’s a foreign country.

    Iirc at one time it’s greatest export to Australia was it’s unemployment benefits bill.

    Australia changed its laws in response.

    It seems unlikely that Ludlam will pay back his illgotten gains.

    Meanwhile Sarah Sea Patrol is taking selfies wuth Justin and huggie and everything.

  173. stackja

    Notafan
    #2442945, posted on July 17, 2017 at 7:34 am

    Greens voters don’t care.

  174. Notafan

    Green vote is dropping.

    Some must care.

  175. Ragu

    I’m surprised that the Parliament doesn’t have a unit that actually asks for proof of renunciation for foreign born MPs.

    A glaring hole, and probably the whole point of the past few years.

    It would appear the AEC has handballed sourcing eligibility to parliament. Parliament runs under the stewardship of the Speaker, so it would make a lot of sense that the clerks of parliament (its only permanent employees) would ensure a prospective member would be eligible to sit before getting sworn in.

    A huuuge procedural balls-up. Who’s running the show?

  176. Haidee

    New Zealand is another country, i.e. foreign. And that can’t be denied.
    Mark A is correct – of course we don’t know what the future holds.

  177. notaluvvie

    There is no doubt a form somewhere on which he has stated he is ELIGIBLE to seek election (or some such terminology). That would also be a criminal offence. It just keeps giving.

    The problem is as all politicians think of themselves as part of the ruling politico-legal class they look after each other lest they themselves be caught in a Billy Snedden position* one day and need assistance. I mean, how many voted against pay rises for themselves?

    *Pants down

  178. The Fifth Bike Rider of the Apocalypse

    Maurice Miner at 7.20pm: Seriously, it’s as difficult as trying to get back on the Blair site!
    I can testify to this brother.
    In fact, I’ve given up trying to post on Mr Blair’s site because of his ‘hidden barriers’, thereby depriving him of my brilliant commentary and razor sharp wit.
    Sorry, Mr Blair, but that’s the way it is.

  179. old bloke

    When did it become a requirement to be an Australian citizen to stand for the House of Representatives or the Senate? How was Australian citizenship conferred in 1901?, did State citizenship (did this exist?) automatically translate into Australian citizenship?

    How did King O’Malley, for example, stand for election in the first House of Representatives election? He was a Canadian citizen* and therefore a British Subject. Was this (British Subject) initially the sole requirement to sit in Federal Parliament?

    *his Canadian citizenship is disputed.

  180. sabena

    Can I point out another potential fly in the ointment?
    The candidate for the Greens who follows Ludlam is Jordan Steele-John.He is described as having cerebral palsy.It is quite likely that he is on some form of disability pension.
    A pension of any kind is a matter which disqualifies a person as being elected:Constitution s44(iv).Link here:
    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html
    It might be remembered that Phil Cleary the independent member for Wills was disqualified on this basis as at the time of election he was an officer of the Education Department of Victoria.The case is Sykes v Cleary,and the link to it is here:
    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/60.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=cth%20consol_act%20coaca430%20s44

  181. old bloke

    Zulu Kilo Two Alpha
    #2442723, posted on July 16, 2017 at 8:20 pm

    Helen Clarke scrapped all RNZAF fighter and trainer aircraft, in 2001 – Ronnie RAAF picked up a few extra pilots that way.

    That works in reverse too. I had a Great Uncle (an Australian) who was in New Zealand at the outbreak of WWII. He signed up and served in the New Zealand Air Force.

  182. Arky

    Deakin defined himself as an “independent Australian Briton,” favouring a self-governing Australia but loyal to the British Empire. He certainly did not see federation as marking Australia’s independence from Britain. On the contrary, Deakin was a supporter of closer empire unity, serving as president of the Victorian branch of the Imperial Federation League, a cause he believed to be a stepping stone to a more spiritual world unity.

    ..

  183. Arky

    George Reid, Prime Minister from 1904 to 1905, was Leader of the Opposition for six of the first seven years of the Australian parliament.

    ..

    Reid was born in Johnstone, Renfrewshire, Scotland, son of a Church of Scotland minister, and migrated to Victoria with his family in 1852.[1

  184. Arky

    Like Alfred Deakin, Andrew Fisher was Prime Minister three times, in 1908–09, 1910–13 and 1914–15. Although very different in background, these two men share the title of founder of the new nation’s statutory structure.

    A studio portrait of the prime ministerial family in 1910 shows Andrew and Margaret Fisher with Robert (left), Andrew junior, Henry, Margaret junior, and new baby John. The youngest child, James, was born in 1912, during Fisher’s second term in office.
    NAA: M1406, 2
    Andrew Fisher’s politics were formed at the coalface. At the age of ten, he became one of many boys working in Scottish mines. He was still a coalminer when he migrated to Queensland thirteen years later.

  185. Arky

    Sir Joseph Cook, GCMG, PC (7 December 1860 – 30 July 1947) was an Australian politician who served as Prime Minister of Australia from 1913 to 1914. He led the Anti-Socialist Party from 1908 to 1909 and the Commonwealth Liberal Party from 1913 to 1917.
    Cook was born in Silverdale, Staffordshire, England. He began working in the local coal mines at the age of nine. Cook emigrated to Australia in 1885, settling in Lithgow, New South Wales. He became involved with the local trade union movement, serving as an official for a miners’ union.

  186. Gavin R Putland

    If I may put this in some sort of perspective:

    In Sue v. Hill (1999), the High Court found that for the purposes of s.44(i) of the Constitution, the UK became a foreign power no later than 1986 (with the passage of the Australia Acts). That doesn’t mean that the law changed in 1999. It means that the law changed no later than 1986, and that ignorance of the change has been no defence since no later than 1986.

    How many conservative icons might have sat while disqualified since 1986?

    Beware of what your own Graham Young has memorably called “glasshouse ballistics”: https://twitter.com/wordspy/status/753171770702761984 .

  187. Arky

    Hughes was born on 25 September 1862 at 7 Moreton Place, Pimlico, London, the son of William Hughes and the former Jane Morris. His parents were both Welsh. His father, who worked as a carpenter and joiner at the Palace of Westminster,

  188. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Like Alfred Deakin, Andrew Fisher was Prime Minister three times, in 1908–09, 1910–13 and 1914–15. Although very different in background, these two men share the title of founder of the new nation’s statutory structure.

    Andrew Fisher bound Australia to the First World War “to the last man and the last shilling.”

  189. Roger

    All British subjects, i.e.. subjects of the British crown, as were all Australians at the time, and thus qualified to sit in the Australian parliament at the time. In the interwar period, in recognition of Australia’s formal and growing political independence from the UK, it was decided that the rights of the Crown should be understood to be “divided”, such that parliamentarians owe allegiance to the Crown in right of Australia and not the UK. From this development Australian citizenship has evolved (Australia Citizenship Act, 1948). In light of this development, the High Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to preclude those holding dual citizenship from being rightfully elected to parliament.

  190. Arky

    John Grey Gorton was born 9 September 1911, Wellington, New Zealand,

  191. Louis

    The Common Informers Act is invalid. There is no power to effectively amend the Constitution other than by following the manner and form provisions for its amendment. I don’t know how this Bill was even passed as it’s the most blatant attempt to modify the operation of the constitution that there is. I’m sure it would have been raised in its debate.

    BTW if an Act says your penalty is $100 then its $100. I don’t know why on earth you would think it is adjusted for inflation based on when it was enacted???? The 100 pounds would be interpreted to be the equivalent based on Australia’s conversion to decimal currency. It could also be used as a lazy excuse for the courts to rule the provision to no longer be of effect.

  192. Louis

    Sorry not paying attention. “Until the Parliament otherwise provides,”

    I forgot that the Constitution has a few of these.

    The not adjusting for inflation thing still stands though. That’s why they use ‘penalty units’ which means you only have to go amend that definition to increase all such penalties.

  193. John constantine

    If large numbers of Australians have to pass drug tests to work and pay tax, so ludfilth can cruise around in luxury while sabotaging the economy:

    Why doesn’t ludfilth have to pass a drug test to take their money?.

  194. Arky

    Now from the other side of the equation.
    New Zealand Prime ministers:
    ..

    Sir Joseph George Ward, 1st Baronet, GCMG, PC (26 April 1856 – 8 July 1930) was the 17th Prime Minister of New Zealand (1906–12, 1928–30), and a key member of the Liberal Party ministries from 1891 to 1906, noted for his financial, social welfare, and postal measures.

    ..

    Ward was born in Melbourne on 26 April 1856 to a Roman Catholic family of Irish descent.

  195. Arky

    Michael Joseph Savage PC (23 March 1872 – 27 March 1940) was an Australian-born New Zealand statesman who served as the 23rd Prime Minister of New Zealand, heading the First Labour Government from 6 December 1935 until his death.

    ..

  196. notafan

    What does the New Zealand constitution sa?

    If there was no such thing as dual citizenship we would not have this problem as on becoming an Australian citizen there would be no alter to worry about.

  197. Arky

    We should invade and annex New Zealand and the whole problem disappears.
    Or if we wait long enough they will soon be in the position invade and annex us.
    Enjoy life under your new Kiwi overlords.
    They should never have been separate countries in the first place.

  198. notafan

    You are right on the first count Arky

    Always said it would make a nice addition to the eastern suburbs of Melbourne.

  199. John constantine

    What is the difference between ludlum and Ben Cousins?.

    Only one of them could swim across the Swan river to escape his problems?.

  200. Roger

    They should never have been separate countries in the first place.

    The only upside to that prospect is that we would have had an invincible rugby union side.

  201. Arky

    The thing that strikes me most in this brief review of our prime ministers, is how pathetic the ones on both sides of the Tasman have been in the last forty years, by comprison to the early ones.
    You know, comparing the ones who thought of themselves first and foremost as part of Empire.
    The later ones are all pretty dismal.
    Such small people.

  202. struth

    I don’t know if we should put New Zealanders under the hell of Australian governance.

    Who’d wish that on a friend?

  203. old bloke

    Arky
    #2443069, posted on July 17, 2017 at 10:45 am

    They should never have been separate countries in the first place.

    Arky, the design of the City of Canberra envisaged an eventual AUS/NZ union. There are six avenues which emanate from State Circuit which surrounds Capital Hill named after the six state capital cities. The planners thought that NZ would merge and become the seventh state of Australia. This didn’t happen so the avenue which would have been Wellington Avenue is now known as Canberra Avenue.

    Interestingly, the Bible refers to Aus/NZ in a singular form as Sinim (Heb. to the South East) in Isaiah 49:12.

  204. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    John Grey Gorton was born 9 September 1911, Wellington, New Zealand,

    John Gorton was running the family orchard on the Riverina when World War Two broke out.

    Dressed in “work clobber” he visited the Royal Australian Air Force recruiting station, to apply for aircrew.

    A supercilious recruiting officer stared at him “We prefer candidates for aircrew to have some academic qualifications.”

    Gorton stared back “Master of Arts from Oxford good enough?”

  205. Delta

    Ok so can an Act of Parliament override the constitution? And if so, how?
    And I see that Louis has raised this issue at #2443038, and #2443043. While he said in his later posting, Sorry not paying attention. “Until the Parliament otherwise provides,” then raises the question since when can Parliament delay an Act of the Constitution?

  206. Stimpson J. Cat

    The Lying Ludlum must be thrown into a cage full of violated sheep so they can have their revenge.
    No mercy for Kiwi Commies.

  207. Arky

    Stimpson J. Cat
    #2443102, posted on July 17, 2017 at 11:46 am
    The Lying Ludlum must be thrown into a cage full of violated sheep so they can have their revenge.
    No mercy for Kiwi Commies.

    ..
    You just earned your second troll of the day award, mister.

  208. Goanna

    The same consideration should be shown to Ludlam as he showed to the elderly that are going cold this winter because of the Green’s batty policies.
    Send him broke, it’s payback time.

  209. .

    Delta
    #2443093, posted on July 17, 2017 at 11:28 am
    Ok so can an Act of Parliament override the constitution? And if so, how?
    And I see that Louis has raised this issue at #2443038, and #2443043. While he said in his later posting, Sorry not paying attention. “Until the Parliament otherwise provides,” then raises the question since when can Parliament delay an Act of the Constitution?

    ??? “Until the Parliament otherwise provides…” is fairly clear. What the hell is “an Act of the Constitution” and how is Parliament delaying anything?

  210. Rohan

    I wonder if Ludlam and The Greens were testing the waters with a “One World Government” by stealth approach.

    Oh well, back to the drawing board.

  211. Barry 1963

    One can understand One Nation getting stung with this (twice, Heather Hill and Rod Culleton) and to be fair, Bob Day’s case was not straight forward. But for a major party to have this happen shows real sloppiness. It’s not that hard to vet.

  212. Judith

    This point may have been made. But there are some countries which don’t allow its citizens to relinquish their status -eg. US, France. You know the meme – once a French citizen always a French citizen.

    I’m pretty sure we have had Yanks in Parliament. Wasn’t there a Senator called Charles who was American?

  213. notafan

    Americans can renounce citizenship

  214. notafan

    The French can also renounce citizenship eg Gerard Depardieu

  215. EvilElvis

    Is that not hilarious that Ludlum is listed as a kiwi born senator on the parliaments own website. FMD!

  216. Bob in Castlemaine

    Anyone know if the beleaguer Green has professional indemnity insurance, before I go see my lawyer? And will the tax payer be funding his legal defence as seems to be the case for just about any other known variety of miscreant?
    I’ve no time for the anti-civilisation Greens but this kind of nonsense just further highlights why our anachronistic laws are crying out for updating.

  217. Delta

    #2443174, posted on July 17, 2017 at 12:58 pm

    You’re right and I should have read Section 46 of the constitution and, even though my post was incorrect, I was referring to a section of the constitution and not an act.

    However, the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975 looks to me like a classic politicians’ “Get out of Gaol” card. Under Section 3 , the penalty is limited to $200 per day and any penalty imposed would require a High Court judgement within 12 months since the offending parliamentarian last sat in parliament.

    So how good is that for stitch up! Would a judgement be possible through the High Court within the stated 12 months and of course another Act of Parliament would be required to change the $200 penalty. So all Ludlam has to do is sit out 12 months with a fat chance he gets sued for damages.

  218. True Aussie

    But there are some countries which don’t allow its citizens to relinquish their status -eg. US, France. You know the meme – once a French citizen always a French citizen.

    Not our problem. Anyone with dual citizenship should not be allowed to hold political office. No exceptions.

  219. Gavin R Putland

    True Aussie wrote:

    Not our problem. Anyone with dual citizenship should not be allowed to hold political office. No exceptions.

    So Kim Yong-un can shut down the Australian Parliament by making a law conferring North Korean citizenship on every person elected thereto.

    To avoid such absurdities, the High Court has held that it suffices to take reasonable steps to renounce foreign citizenship – not that one must actually succeed in renouncing foreign citizenship.

  220. Gavin R Putland

    Oops – “Yong” should be “Jong”.

  221. Slayer of Memes

    Like all good socialists and communists, the Greens party should pay back the ill-gained salaries of both Ludlam and Waters collectively….

Comments are closed.