Why even bother having a Constitution?
Posted on 10/09/2017 11:47:59 PM PDT by Olog-hai
A government lawyer told Australia’s High Court on Tuesday that it could not take a constitutional ban on dual citizens being elected to Parliament literally when deciding the fates of seven lawmakers.
Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue told the High Court judges that five of the lawmakers, including three government ministers, should not be disqualified from Parliament for breaching the constitution because they did not voluntarily acquire or retain citizenship of another country. The hearing began on Tuesday and is expected to take three days.
Under Section 44 (i) of the 116-year-old constitution, “a subject or citizen of a foreign power” is not eligible to be elected to Parliament. […]
The fate of Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce is most crucial to the government in an unprecedented political crisis. If the court rules that he was illegally elected in July last year due to New Zealand citizenship he unknowingly inherited from his father, the ruling conservative coalition could lose its single-seat majority in the House of Representatives, where governments are formed.
The remaining six lawmakers are senators who could be replaced by members of the same party without an election. Donaghue argues that only New Zealand-born Scott Ludlam and India-born Malcolm Roberts should be disqualified for failing to take reasonable steps to renounce their dual nationalities. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Looks like the relevant constitutional provision is transparently and “literally” obvious in meaning. You cannot hold any other citizenship and be in Australia’s parliament. It does not matter when or how you acquired that citizenship. The language is simple and unequivocal.
So, of course, mush-headed lawyers and pols try to say the constitution should not be taken “literally”.... yeah, sure, just more mental corruption in the rapid decline of civilization.
116 years ago NZers were not considered foreigners in Australia, neither were Brits or Canadians. Hopefully this will change when CANZUK comes into existence in the wake of Brexit.
aahh, thanks for the explanation!
aahh, thanks for the explanation!
OK so did he not know who his father was or that his father had a foreign nationality ???
I thought the father was going to be from a third world country like Obama’s was...well New Zealand is like an extreme foreign country to the Aussies ...the jealousy, etc
There’s been a long time feud between Aussies and New Zealanders...
Can’t take the Constitution literally?
The Australians have nothing on the U.S.
Our government was not taking our Constitution literally *before* Australia *had* a constitution!
The idea of separate nationalities for nations within what was then the British Empire and which became the Commonwealth did not even exist in British or Australian law until the late 1940s, and Australians remained explicitly British subjects until the 1980s. It wasn't until 1999 that anybody even questioned whether somebody holding citizenship of another Commonwealth Realm might be ineligible to be a Member of Parliament and the decision in that case was not unanimous and it is quite open to the High Court to revise that decision which was actually made in the context of many people (including probably some of the Judges) assuming Australia was likely to become a Republic by 2001 (in fact, the referendum held in late 1999, failed to the surprise of many to move Australia from being a constitutional monarchy).
The latter.
Barnaby Joyce's father, James Joyce, migrated to Australia from New Zealand in 1947. The concept of New Zealand citizenship did not exist until 1949 - at the time of his migration to Australia, James Joyce was simply a British subject, not a New Zealand citizen.
I wouldn’t laugh. It’s absolutely no different than how most of our SCOTUS justices think.
Natural born citizen in our Constitution means born here of citizen parents.
Obama was born a British subject.
Ignored to our detriment.
A very helpful explanation, many thanks!
Yes, thx, I wrote my comment with our USA predicament in mind. So many “creative” interpretations of our constitution through the years....
January 1949 for NZ citizenship ...yes
I was born a British subject in Dec 1948 but registered a month later as a New Zealander...
I don’t know whether that was because we lived in a little town miles from anywhere and they had run out of British forms and were sent the new NZ ones instead, or because the gov offices were closed over Christmas or because my parents wanted at least one New Zealand child...is that like an anchor baby ???
Anyhoo when I applied for a passport when I was 21 I was told I could have a British one but I opted for the NZ...my Mum wasn’t big on “Pommies”
With the British one I could have come and gone from England no problem...I was a citizen...as it is they see I was born in New Zealand and I’m in..
:)
about the father being born in NZ I don’t think it would have been a problem back then...something has changed since...
we could go back and forth NZ to Aust Aust to NZ without a visa and work etc just like going to another state here...
as for that British subject thingy it shouldn’t have mattered...youd think he wouldn’t have be automatically grandfathered into NZ citizenship in 1949... I wasn’t...it was a decision of my parents to wait for some reason...my birthdate was still recognized as making me British and not NZ...
Note: this is NOT like Ted Cruz’s situation...
No it was Obama’s father who was born a British subject...during the fathers lifetime Kenya became independent and so by the time that guy who used to be in my White House was born the nationality was Kenyan...
Yes NZ could immigrate to Canada without any problems...most of the usual requirements for immigration of foreigners didn’t apply...
At the time of Obama’s birth, Kenya was still a British protectorate, he was born a British subject and admitted that on his “Fight the Smears” website.
A few things.
Until the early 1980s, both New Zealanders and Australians were (as well as being citizens of either country - or in some cases both) were still British subjects, and both countries allowed more or less free entry and exit for all British subjects.
Also (and this is part of what has caused the mess in Australia) until very recently (as in the last few years, maybe even the last few months) New Zealand did not treat people who were eligible for New Zealand citizenship by descent as being New Zealand citizens automatically. For some reason, that has changed very recently, and why is not entirely clear. Either New Zealand was mistaken in how it had been applying that aspect of its citizenship law since 1949 (which is not impossible) or they've actually changed the interpretation - which is their right. But from an Australian legal perspective, it's a bit weird for somebody like Barnaby Joyce to suddenly acquire New Zealand citizenship automatically when previous practice said he had to register (and would be granted that registration automatically if he did).
I have a similar issue myself with the UK - about twenty years ago, I paid them (if I recall correctly) fifty pounds to register myself as a British citizen by descent (from my mother). Apparently, from what I am being told now, I actually acquired that citizenship automatically at some point in the 1980s when British law decided mothers should be treated the same as fathers in terms of passing on citizenship - which makes me wonder what I actually paid them fifty quid for. In my case, I want both my Australian and British citizenship, but I'd like to be a bit clearer on the exact legal mechanics :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.