I. Told. You. So.

Isn’t it funny how those who purport to be the most eminent often can’t see what’s right in front of their noses?

TMR breaks down the good bits of today’s High Court decision in the Citizenship Seven affair. Trust me when I say it’s an absolute treasure trove of entertainment… for everyone except George Brandis and those who were ultimately disqualified from Parliament.

Go and grab yourself a coffee or liquored beverage of your choice (it is Friday afternoon after all) and let’s get busy!

Firstly, this was TMR two weeks ago:

How about we have a look at what section 44 of the Constitution actually says:

44. 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.

If I could triple underline the word ‘is’ up there or shove it up Brandis’ nostrils (in the hope that it reaches his brain), then I would.

Dear George, awareness is not the issue here. It’s a matter of fact. If you have foreign citizenship, you are incapable of being a Federal Parliamentarian. Full stop. The status of a purported Federal parliamentarian who has foreign citizenship isn’t ‘voidable’, it’s void. Full stop. Or ‘void ab initio’ (void from the outset) if you want to get Latin about it.

There is no ambiguity here. As Yoda said: ‘Do or do not. There is no try’.

This was the High Court today:

At para 21:

The amicus submitted that s 44(i) has two limbs, not three as was suggested by Brennan J. He contended that the first limb disqualifies a person who “is under any acknowledgment” of the stated kind, and the second limb disqualifies a person who “is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power”. In the first limb, the words “under any acknowledgment” capture any “person who has formally or informally acknowledged allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power and who has not withdrawn or revoked that acknowledgment”. Within this limb the word “acknowledgment” connotes an act involving an exercise of the will of the person concerned. In contrast, in the second limb of s 44(i), the words “subject”, “citizen” and “entitled to the rights” connote a state of affairs involving the existence of a status or of rights under the law of the foreign power.

[TMR 1, Brandis 0].

At para 37:

Whether a person has the status of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power necessarily depends upon the law of the foreign power. That is so because it is only the law of the foreign power that can be the source of the status of citizenship or of the rights and duties involved in that status.

At para 47:

Section 44(i) does not say that it operates only if the candidate knows of the disqualifying circumstance. It is a substantial departure from the ordinary and natural meaning of the text of the second limb to understand it as commencing:

“Any person who:

(i) … knows that he or she is a subject or a citizen …”

[TMR 2, Brandis 0].

At para 49:

The approach urged on behalf of the Attorney-General echoes that of Deane J in Sykes v Cleary.

At paras 52 and 53:

The approach taken by Deane J draws no support from the text and structure of s 44(i): indeed, Deane J used the first limb of the provision to alter the ordinary and natural meaning of the second. Not only does that approach alter the plain meaning of the second limb of s 44(i), it renders that limb otiose because, so understood, it adds nothing to the first limb in terms of the practical pursuit of the purpose of s 44(i).

[TMR 3, Brandis 0].

In addition, the approach of Deane J places naturalised Australian citizens in a position of disadvantage relative to natural-born Australian citizens. A majority in Sykes v Cleary did not countenance such a distinction.

[TMR: Are you reading this George? Try to think about this next time you want to build an entire case on a single judge’s obiter dictum].

At para 57:

It may be said that the variation on the principal submission of the Attorney-General, with its focus on voluntary acts, has the virtues of eschewing a distinction in principle between natural-born and naturalised Australians and of avoiding the conceptual difficulties associated with interrogating a candidate’s knowledge or state of mind. But ultimately the variation in the Attorney-General’s approach depends upon the unstable distinction between overt voluntary acts and conscious omissions. The application of the natural and ordinary meaning of s 44(i) serves to avoid the difficulties which attend this unstable distinction.

[TMR 4, Brandis 0].

[TMR: ‘Unstable’!!! Are you having fun yet George?].

At para 60:

Finally, while it may be said that it is harsh to apply s 44(i) to disqualify a candidate born in Australia who has never had occasion to consider himself or herself as other than an Australian citizen and exclusively an Australian citizen, nomination for election is manifestly an occasion for serious reflection on this question; the nomination form for candidates for both the Senate and the House of Representatives requires candidates to declare that they are not rendered ineligible by s 44.

[TMR 5, Brandis 0].

At paras 61 and 62:

Section 44(i) is not concerned with whether the candidate has been negligent in failing to comply with its requirements. Section 44(i) does not disqualify only those who have not made reasonable efforts to conform to its requirements. Section 44(i) is cast in peremptory terms. Where the personal circumstances of a would-be candidate give rise to disqualification under s 44(i), the reasonableness of steps taken by way of inquiry to ascertain whether those circumstances exist is immaterial to the operation of s 44(i).

The reasons of the majority in Sykes v Cleary do not support the proposition that a person who is a foreign citizen contravenes the second limb of s 44(i) only if that person actually knows that he or she is a foreign citizen and fails to take reasonable steps available to him or her to divest himself or herself of that status under the foreign law. Nor do the reasons of the majority in Sykes v Cleary support the view that a person who is a foreign citizen is not disqualified if, not knowing of that status, he or she fails to take steps to divest himself or herself of that status.

[TMR 6, Brandis 0].

And, in case there was any doubt, at paras 70-72:

Summary as to the proper construction of s 44(i)

The approaches to the construction of s 44(i) urged on behalf of the Attorney-General, Mr Joyce MP and Senator Nash, and Mr Ludlam and Ms Waters are rejected.

Section 44(i) operates to render “incapable of being chosen or of sitting” persons who have the status of subject or citizen of a foreign power. Whether a person has the status of foreign subject or citizen is determined by the law of the foreign power in question. Proof of a candidate’s knowledge of his or her foreign citizenship status (or of facts that might put a candidate on inquiry as to the possibility that he or she is a foreign citizen) is not necessary to bring about the disqualifying operation of s 44(i).

A person who, at the time that he or she nominates for election, retains the status of subject or citizen of a foreign power will be disqualified by reason of s 44(i), except where the operation of the foreign law is contrary to the constitutional imperative that an Australian citizen not be irremediably prevented by foreign law from participation in representative government. Where it can be demonstrated that the person has taken all steps that are reasonably required by the foreign law to renounce his or her citizenship and within his or her power, the constitutional imperative is engaged.

[TMR 7 (one for each Justice of the High Court), Brandis 0].

And that’s a wrap.

George Brandis ‘QC’: you are a bona fide dunce. You should not be our nation’s attorney-general anymore.

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to I. Told. You. So.

  1. To be fair to Brandis he was a bona fide dunce way before this happened.

  2. Barry 1963

    Kooky Malcolm Roberts is gone. He stood on the ticket of an anti-immigrant party and he was booted out of the senate for being an immigrant! High entertainment value in this fool, but really, serious government deserves better. I bet they’re happy at the CSIRO!

  3. NormaP

    How mean could Turnbull be? He must be blaming Brandis for making him appear a fool. Will he change his mind about the London job?

  4. Craig

    Brandis is only in this for politics not understanding the letter of the law.

  5. OldOzzie

    The Black Knight of Point Piper. It’s only a flesh wound….

    Coalition chaos: volume of chaos turned up to 11

    Two weeks ago my column in The Weekend Australian invoked the traditional killing season of parliament to suggest Malcolm Turnbull would be greatly relieved to reach the sanctuary of Christmas. In a crude analogy, I borrowed from David Attenborough’s documentaries to picture the Prime Minister as a wildebeest trying to cross a crocodile infested river.

    Today the High Court has taken a chunk out of Turnbull’s hind leg and he is bleeding in the water. Christmas looks a long way away.

    My argument a fortnight ago centred on the many hurdles and political problems confronting the Prime Minister, especially the energy policy conundrum, but including the dual citizenship shambles, poor polling and the gay marriage debate.

    This week has seen the volume of chaos in national affairs turned up to 11 (to borrow from Spinal Tap). The Australian Workers’ Union raids and the way Employment Minister Michaelia Cash shot herself in the foot saw the government lose control of the political agenda in Canberra and surrender the moral authority in parliament.

    It limped into today in very poor shape, even though the judgement of the High Court was always going to present another onslaught of difficulties. The result could hardly have been worse. One former minister (ironically, the only one who had stood aside during the case), Matt Canavan, has survived. But the Nationals Leader and Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, is out, as is his Deputy Leader, Fiona Nash.

    The Coalition is forced into what is technically a minority government situation for a few weeks, presuming Joyce can win his by-election, expected on December 2. But the sense of utter turmoil is overwhelming and Labor’s management of political tactics and campaigning over recent months suggests they will be adept at maximising this discomfort in coming weeks.

    Turnbull is weakened by his own words and actions — he confidently predicted the High Court would not rule Joyce ineligible and declined to have him or Nash stand aside from cabinet. His judgment has been rebuffed by the highest court in the land.

    The Prime Minister is due to fly overseas today. He now faces an hour by hour, day by day struggle to convey a sense of authority, stability and progress from the helm of the national government.

    A fortnight ago senior government players and other commentators suggested I was overstating the crisis confronting Turnbull. Right now, for Turnbull, the refuge of Christmas must look too far away, and the waters around him full of peril.

  6. Michel Lasouris

    Barnaby Joyce said that he always accepted that the Court could make the decision it did, today. But Plibbersek (the drug dealers moll) lied when she said that Barnaby said “he accepted he was elected illegally” No he didn’t . Another socialist liar. But note that the ABC faithfully reported her comment originally, but omitted it in subsequent News quotes; confirming that ABC IS the media arm of the Socialists one again, this time by omitting her laughable calumny The ABC daily claims to be “without Bias or Agenda” I don’t think so……….

  7. Norman Church

    With due respect to the HCA, the idea that the meaning of a section of our constitution – the paramount law of the land – should be shaped by, or be understood so as to accomodate, the content of a nomination form seems a little dubious to me.

    Particularly if the words of the section are all that matters.

  8. Baldrick

    George Brandis is the Matt Damon of Australian politics.

  9. Siltstone

    Yes Marcus, you picked it absolutley right (Marcus 7; Brandis 0). Anyone mildly conversant with the English language can understand the meaning of section 44. Admittedly, there is always a risk that idealogues on the High Court will make things up as they go (e.g Mabo), but in this case they followed the wise counsel of Marcus. Well done!

  10. Norman Church

    Should add that I don’t really have a problem with the decision overall. Just find some of the inconsistencies in the HCA’s approach a little odd.

  11. Alfred

    “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.”

    I guess Mark Dreyfus, Michael Danby and Joshua Frydenberg have to go since their ethnicity guarantees them the rights and privileges of Israeli citizenship.

  12. Great post

    i hope these idiots never get reelected.

  13. cohenite

    Obviously Roberts did not take reasonable steps. I have not read what the HC’s view is on the steps he did take; has anyone?

  14. Roger

    More disturbing than Brandis’s ineptitude is Maladroit Blight Trumble’s notion that has announced that he by reference to a committee he can find an expediency that will allow for exceptions on a matter about which the public’s views are likely as clear as the Constitution’s.

  15. Roger

    …that he has announced that by reference…

  16. Boambee John

    (i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power,

    Marcus

    Focussing on this part of 44 (i), is there a case that someone who has accepted funds from a foreign power has an “acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to (that) foreign power? I am thinking of characters like Dastardly and the other ALP member who accepted funds from Chinese businessmen with close links to the Chinese government.

  17. What a joke this country is! What a joke and gobbledygook are the Australian Constitution. What a joke the High Court is where a bunch of senile old men decide that a foreign country can claim that a person born in Australia is a citizen of that country. And all that based on world play in the ancient document cobbled together by a group of farmers (no disrespect to the farmers) in 1891.
    I don’t care about the legal gobbledygook of the decision, the important think about this decision is that it extinguishes the “birthright”* of a person born in Australia.
    And this country wants to be an international affairs player!
    You may not like Joice, or Brandis, this goes beyond Joyce and Brandis. This decision means that Australian Constitution cannot guarantee the basic human right of its citizen – the birthright!

    *Definition of birthright
    – a right, privilege, or possession to which a person is entitled by birth

  18. Boambee John

    Also good to see the Court give a backhander to the ever creative Sir William Deane.

  19. Driftforge

    Now – wasn’t there the matter of statutory fines to be imposed on people who sit while foreign?

    This decision means that Australian Constitution cannot guarantee the basic human right of its citizen – the birthright!

    No, it just means that birthright does not automatically include the right to sit in parliament. Which is a reasonable judgement.

    should be shaped by, or be understood so as to accomodate, the content of a nomination form seems a little dubious to me.

    However that a nomination form should be shaped by – and apparently is – the constitution is eminently reasonable.

  20. Joe

    It’s simple. Do away with multiple citizenships. You are either an Australian citizen by birth or renunciation of ALL your other citizenships or you are a permanent resident unable to participate in elections or government.

    If you are an Australian citizen by birth – this automatically renounces all claims to other citizenships by default.

  21. JC

    It’s simple. Do away with multiple citizenships. You are either an Australian citizen by birth or renunciation of ALL your other citizenships or you are a permanent resident unable to participate in elections or government.

    If you are an Australian citizen by birth – this automatically renounces all claims to other citizenships by default.

    I’m not so sure. If you’re allowed to vote, you should also have the right to be a candidate for election.

  22. Driftforge

    I’m not so sure. If you’re allowed to vote, you should also have the right to be a candidate for election.

    Probably best fixed by removing their right to vote.

  23. candy

    I feel a little sad for them, what a disruption to their lives, even those abusivey type Greens.
    George Brandis led them astray by saying it would be all okay, and the High Court would judge them
    on their honorable intentions, not their lack of documentation and meeting requirements.

    It did seem a strange thing for a legal type person to say, though, but they got their hopes up.

  24. Driftforge
    #2534948, posted on October 27, 2017 at 8:17 pm

    This decision means that Australian Constitution cannot guarantee the basic human right of its citizen – the birthright!

    No, it just means that birthright does not automatically include the right to sit in parliament.

    Why? Is the right to sit in parliament (when duly elected) a birthright or not?
    What are other birthrights automatically excluded by Australian Constitution?

  25. cohenite

    I don’t know what steps Roberts took and the reasoning of the court in finding them unreasonable. How did he not conform to the criteria in Sykes: Paragraph 53, MASON C.J., TOOHEY AND McHUGH JJ.:

    What amounts to the taking of reasonable steps to renounce foreign nationality must depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. What is reasonable will turn on the situation of the individual, the requirements of the foreign law and the extent of the connection between the individual and the foreign State of which he or she is alleged to be a subject or citizen. And it is relevant to bear in mind that a person who has participated in an Australian naturalization ceremony in which he or she has expressly renounced his or her foreign allegiance may well believe that, by becoming an Australian citizen, he or she has effectively renounced any foreign nationality.

    And BRENNAN J. For the reasons stated by Mason C.J., Toohey and McHugh JJ, para 7:

    A second situation occurs when an Australian citizen has done all that lies reasonably within his or her power (i) to renounce the status or the rights or privileges conferred by the foreign law carrying a reciprocal duty of allegiance or obedience to the foreign power and (ii) to obtain a release from any such duty. It is not sufficient, in the second situation, for a person holding dual citizenship to make a unilateral declaration renouncing foreign citizenship when some further step can reasonably be taken which will be effective under the relevant foreign law to release that person from the duty of allegiance or obedience.

  26. Empire GTHO Phase III

    Excellent gloating, Marcus. Just the one error:

    George Brandis ‘QC’: you are a bona fide dunce. You should not be our nation’s attorney-general anymore.

    He should NEVER have been appointed AG.

  27. cuckoo

    Just hoping that the ladies of the IDF will use Turnbull as a punching bag in their Krav Maga classes during his visit to Israel. He isn’t fit for much else.

  28. overburdened

    the 6 P’s of effective management instantly spring to mind.

  29. egg_

    George Brandis ‘QC’: you are a bona fide dunce. You should not be our nation’s attorney-general anymore.

    He should NEVER have been appointed AG.

    Clenchy-bot scored an own goal?
    I’m shocked, I tells ya!

  30. overburdened

    When someone as acclimatised as Mr Joyce can be ruled to have potential to become conflicted in his loyalties as with most of the motley crew, then the gnomes paid to ensure constitutional integrity need to be asked if this was an intended oversight, tucked away for a rainy day or something.

  31. overburdened

    Or it’s just a huge f%&k up as per original post.

  32. Aynsley Kellow

    The HC: ‘Whether a person has the status of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power necessarily depends upon the law of the foreign power.’
    Is not the Court placing us all (and, indeed, themselves) ‘under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power’?
    It is one thing to say ignorance of the law of Australia is no defence – ignorance of the law of the 200-odd nation states is quite another!

  33. Rob MW

    George Brandis ‘QC’: you are a bona fide dunce. You should not be our nation’s attorney-general anymore.

    Genetics Marcus, genetics. When they dropped the Common Law they dropped all common sense and the ability to comprehend actual text and most importantly, they dropped all sense of context – viz annotated constitution of the Australian Commonwealth (Quick & Garran). But then again, so did the fucking HCA in treating the document as a living document, deferring Quick & Garran to the dust bin with the document apparently devoid of pretext in cases like the Tasmanian Dams case & the Durham Holdings case.

    It’s not Brandis’s fault, it’s what he has only been taught besides being a genetic fool in the first place.

  34. Leo G

    Is not the Court placing us all (and, indeed, themselves) ‘under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power’?

    Acknowledgement in this context refers to an acceptance of the truth of allegiance to a foreign power. It appears it is enough that the High Court may accept that truth on behalf of a person being chosen or sitting as a senator or member of the HoR.

  35. cohenite

    What the fuck are reasonable steps.

  36. overburdened

    I will paddle out in the morning and sit out the back as the sun rises and beseech Hughie the Great God of the Ocean that firstly I’ll get some crackers (big ask because it’s gonna be smallish), and second that the ALP never gets its hands on the wheel again, in spite of there being no viable alternative. I think Oz is rooted.

  37. Infidel Tiger

    Roberts is a confirmed liar and lunatic. I would deport the xunt.

    Joyce has a history of duplicity. One need only look at who he supports in SOO. I’d deport that xunt too.

  38. Elizer Right

    The words of the constitution are quite clear “entitled to”, a few months ago, it was good enough as a basis to deport people, who were “entitled to” the citizenship of another Nation.

    My children are, much younger than Joyce; but, well aware of, their heritage, what they are “entitled to,” and what they should be afraid of. Surely, those who make laws for us, should have some regard for the law themselves. Perhaps the Liberal National mob should find another candidate.

  39. Infidel Tiger

    Anyone with dual citizenship should pay 150% taxation and have no franchise to vote in this country. They should also be whipped on the hour.

    Foreign devils must be punished.

  40. overburdened

    I can give u a contact @ 711

  41. Oh come on

    I think Brandis actually wanted to spend his career as a lawyer. Trouble was that he was just terrible at it, so he went into politics.

  42. Infidel Tiger

    One of the enduring myths of society is that lawyers are smart. As a whole you will never come across a dumber grouping in your life.

    There’s a reason that law degrees are now viewed as worse than arts degrees.

  43. twostix

    If Labor were in government they wouldn’t have ruled this way.

  44. Infidel Tiger

    One hopes they would have. This is the best ruling the HC has made in years.

    A strict and correct originalist interpretation of the document that makes us a nation of laws.

  45. cohenite

    Roberts is a confirmed liar and lunatic. I would deport the xunt.

    That’s funny.

  46. Infidel Tiger

    What’s not funny is that Roberts repeatedly lied about renouncing his British citizenship.

    The man is a dishonourable xunt and has no place in our society. He should bankrupted, beaten and brined.

  47. twostix

    You know well that if this ruling had of threatened a Labor governments power the poodle HC would have found a secret constitutional right to be a foreigner in parliament.

    Who else would supply them with a fresh supply of all they need.

  48. twostix

    95% of modern “OOKAY” refugees are dreadful and need to go back.

  49. Infidel Tiger

    Probably true. But credit to the HC, they fucked some foreign devils today.

    This is a new age dawning. Foreign scum are getting the heave ho.

  50. twostix

    Imagine if you will, having mopey low end “ookay” subjects squatting in your country as “permanent residents”, only here thanks to Howard attempting to whiten up Australia a bit and ward off One Nation, lecturing and raging about your politics as though they are the true blue and didn’t just evacuate their shit country to get away from all the other people like them.

    This is real.

  51. Tintarella di Luna

    The High Court got it right today

  52. Norman Church

    A lot of comments here which suggest that the merits of the decision should be judged simply on whether one is happy with those on the receiving end today.

    To me, that is petty, small-minded and dangerous nonsense that one would expect from SJWs. Bit surprised to see it on the Cat.

    Once created, precedents can bite friends as well as enemies on the rear. As Obama supporters have found with Executive Orders.

  53. Infidel Tiger

    It’s a fantastic precedent. Basically: foreigners and duplicitous quislings can go fuck themselves sideways.

    Australia for Australians! Beautiful stuff!

  54. Elizer Right

    Lovely;

    Infidel Tiger
    #2535055, posted on October 27, 2017 at 11:56 pm
    Probably true. But credit to the HC, they fucked some foreign devils today.

    This is a new age dawning. Foreign scum are getting the heave ho.

    And they ‘the scum,” usually remain permanent residents, with all the privileges of citizenship, don’t burden themselves with voting or the politics, some stand for election and get voted in by the diligent compulsory voter.

    nfidel Tiger
    #2535030, posted on October 27, 2017 at 10:50 pm
    Roberts is a confirmed liar and lunatic. I would deport the xunt.

    Joyce has a history of duplicity. One need only look at who he supports in SOO. I’d deport that xunt too.

    Well you are really too smart by half now… a couple of days ago you couldn’t discern whether the deputy prime minister was a citizen or not. You only had to know what the ordinary meaning of “entitled to” was had to have the courts help you with that … meanwhile … you need the skills, have to import those, or put up with whats left in parliament.

  55. True Aussie

    except where the operation of the foreign law is contrary to the constitutional imperative that an Australian citizen not be irremediably prevented by foreign law from participation in representative government

    Absolute horseshit. Where in the Constitution does one fine this ‘imperative’. The rights of a person to stand for government is overriden by the benefit to society in not electing a foreign agent.

  56. twostix

    And they ‘the scum,” usually remain permanent residents, with all the privileges of citizenship, don’t burden themselves with voting or the politics, some stand for election and get voted in by the diligent compulsory voter.

    Well you are really too smart by half now… a couple of days ago you couldn’t discern whether the deputy prime minister was a citizen or not. You only had to know what the ordinary meaning of “entitled to” was had to have the courts help you with that … meanwhile … you need the skills, have to import those, or put up with whats left in parliament.

    lol this is perfect!

    Like I said above:

    Imagine if you will, having mopey low end “ookay” subjects squatting in your country as “permanent residents”, only here thanks to Howard attempting to whiten up Australia a bit and ward off One Nation, lecturing and raging about your politics as though they are the true blue and didn’t just evacuate their shit country to get away from all the other people like them.

    And like an oompa loompa suddenly one appears!

  57. twostix

    There’s an urban legend that if you stand in front of a mirror and say “mopey permanent resident” three times one hundred thousand “ookay” refugees appears in your country and lecture you about your uncouth politics (and make sure you vote Labour!)

  58. Fisky

    Fully endorse this wonderful decision by the HC!

  59. Elizer Right

    Fisky
    #2535116, posted on October 28, 2017 at 1:23 am
    Fully endorse this wonderful decision by the HC!

    Hardly a surprise given the clear and unambiguous wording of the constitution. Surprised that those that ought to have known better did not.

  60. Driftforge

    Why? Is the right to sit in parliament (when duly elected) a birthright or not?

    No, it’s not. Rights are fairly ephemeral things at the best of times, passing courtesies of the age, certainly not something one should ever feel entitled to.

  61. cohenite

    What’s not funny is that Roberts repeatedly lied about renouncing his British citizenship.

    Nah, the HC found he honestly believed he had renounced his British citizenship.

    Roberts was the only MP who recognised alarmism for the gigantic scam it is and was a passionate opponent of Islam.

    You’re a fucking idiot.

  62. Megan

    I find it almost impossible to believe that the Liars Party nomination process is so effective that they do not have one dodgy citizen in their despicable midst.

  63. jonesy

    So, because I have to apply for a foreign citizenship through my mum (born here) I am still an Australian citizen by birth. The trap is if a foreign nation has rules that if you are born to a citizen of that nation you are automatically given citizenship. This regardless of the other parent being an Australian citizen? Note, I can apply through my mum, yet, Barny is caught because his Dad is still a citizen ofUnZud. Wasn’t it the case the nationality of your mother determined your nationality automatically?

  64. Shy Ted

    Karma. Bananaby, who I had rated highly until he was asked the question, “Who is the better PM, Abbott or Turnbull?”, not long after Turdball was installed, answered “Turnbull”. Not sure he’s spoken a word of truth since.

  65. Cynic of Ayr

    I’m still a tad confused.
    The Constitution says ,”…or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights …”
    OK, one can renounce citizenship. Joyce write to the NZ Govt and say, “Stick your Citizenship. I renounce it!”
    Fine.
    BUT, after that, is he still entitled to be an NZ Citizen?
    Can he renounce entitlement?
    Can he go back in a year or so, and say,”I’ve decided to become an NZ Citizen again, and as I’m entitled, gimme one.”
    I mean, I’m entitled to the Aged Pension. I can decide not to claim it, merely by not claiming it. But, at any time, I can claim it. Not claiming it does not remove my entitlement.
    Could I write to the Govt and say, “I’ve decided to renounce my entitlement to the Aged Pension.”
    They’d reply, “Yeah, yeah, old feller. Give us a call when you run out of your own money.”

  66. candy

    Karma. Bananaby, who I had rated highly until he was asked the question, “Who is the better PM, Abbott or Turnbull?”, not long after Turdball was installed, answered “Turnbull”. Not sure he’s spoken a word of truth since.

    My understanding is he pretty much colluded with Bishop/Pyne etc in the knifing, or was quite happy about it, and is very friendly with M. Turnbull as being Deputy was a dream of his, and he would not give that up easily. I have doubts about his truthfulness, too.

  67. Shine a Light

    A pack of salivating reporters takes away a bit of credibility from the morally superior and empathetic tribe.

  68. cohenite

    Roberts is a big loss.

  69. jonesy

    Until 1993 citizenship by birth was acquired in Australia under the regime of jus soli (law of the soil). Jus soli prevailed in Britain from 1608 when a test case (Calvin’s case) established that anyone born on British soil held British nationality. Thereafter, all people born on British soil were attributed the status of British subjects irrespective of the nationality of their parents, and jus soli applied in New South Wales and later the other colonies from the time of their foundation. Various statutes dealing with endenization, naturalisation and nationality in Britain and the Australian colonies were passed from the 1840s but none disturbed this fundamental principle of British nationality.24 With the Nationality Act 1920 the Commonwealth instituted jus soli under its own statutes, and the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 also granted Australian citizenship to all people born in Australia (with a few minor exceptions).25 The great majority of people acquired their status as Australian citizens by birth. Additional provision existed for the formal status of British subject to be attributed to those people born of a British father outside British territory, and the same applied for the status of Australian citizen after 1948.26 Collectively, these people were ‘natural-born’ Australian citizens.

    http://guides.naa.gov.au/citizenship/chapter1/citizenship-australia.aspx

    So…anyone born here acquired citizenship. Anyone who was a British subject (a kiwi) who wasn’t at risk of removal who resided here for five years was also a citizen. So, if the NZ law is post Mr Joyce moving here plus five years…he is an Australian therefore Barny is Australian.

  70. Shine a Ligh

    Wouldn’t it be ironic if the same politicians who have to go though the voting system won again, with .even higher margins; costly too.
    Then, gritting my teeth, that’s politics.

  71. Mundi

    So can’t be just renounce and run again at bi-election?

Comments are closed.