Politics

The problem with that is they need to work out who is eligible to run. If they go the polls and we vote someone else in, are they allowed and will we then have another dissolution?

Sort it out first before wasting time and money.

But here’s the thing. Even if you DO decide on direct democracy with all it’s practical problems and the dangers of majority tyranny, this is not in any sense democracy. If the people running it were interested in democracy, they’d agree to be bound by its result even if that result was ‘yes’. And they’d apply the same laws re deceptive/malicious advertising, and the same vote integrity safeguards around it, etc. And, closer to the bone, they’d have to start caring about and respecting the ‘democratic’ verdict on other issues too. I’m old enough to remember when a full 700000 people marched opposing Australia getting involved in the Iraq war. The government, which included Turnbull, Abbott, Bishop, etc, cheerfully ignored them.

This isn’t democracy, it’s a taxpayer-funded attempt by Turnbull to avoid a leadership challenge by giving the conservative wing of the liberal party a way to block gay marriage without it looking like his fault.

5 Likes

I thought this is what the GG was there for. To save us from constitutional crisis. Where the hell is he? This whole parliament is looking unconstitutional at the moment to the letter of the law as it is written.
If you start re interpreting sections of the constitution you dont like, where does that end?

I very much doubt they are there to interpret it. Rule on it from a legal perspective, not change the interpretation I would think

I have a problem with the burqua purely on a practicality level.

I cant wear my motorcycle helmet into a servo. If i tried into a bank I’d have a swat team on the spot in 10 seconds.

And whilst on motorcycles/cars , its unsettling not being able to take cues from fellow drivers head positioning and eye contact.

The terrorist attack in Tehran was undertaken by men wearing burqua’s.

The world has changed. Its unfortunate , but i dont think religious custom justifies streetscape anonymity any more than i should be allowed to wander around a milkbar or shopping centre with a balaclava on.

On the flipside, i hate what is effectively a presumption of ill-intent to be imposed on anyone. Its a tricky juggling act.

Edit : - i should add that im assuming that burqua’s can be worn into banks etc. Maybe theres a procedure where they head into a room and are identified first. I cant find any info one way or the other.

2 Likes

Oh , and Pauline Hanson is a friggin idiot. As if that needs pointing out.

Double , oh. Hanson-Young stating that the next terrorist attack in australia is now PH’s fault is friggin moronic as well.

1 Like

Pauline Hanson is an idiot, but she’s crazy like a fox.

The burqa thing did exactly what she wanted it to do. She doesn’t care if the Libs & alp condemn her. All she needs is 14-ish % of the Qld senate vote and she’s set in perpetuity. This won’t damage her chances there at all. In fact, it might help her, as she forced the Libs to oppose her which helps her secure part of the anti-Muslim vote which might have stuck with the coalition.

And then there’s the old ‘bad publicity is better than no publicity’ thing. She’s been a guest on Sunrise every single day since the burqa stunt. Think about how much that would have cost One Nation if she’d had to pay standard rates for political advertising. Mission accomplished.

It’s a very legal question, as Sam Lane would say. As I understand it the High Court will sit as the Court of Disputed Returns acting on petition referrals, for which procedures may differ from the normal cases. I suppose the Directions hearing will go some way to sort out who can appear, including third parties.
The Sykes v Cleary and Sue v Hill cases provide some background on candidate eligibility connected to dual citizenship.
Incidentally, the AEC has in the past provided guidance in its Candidates Handbook on dual citizenship issues. The problems with Section 44 have been addressed by Parliamentary Committees, but until now there has not been any appetite for a referendum. As some have observed, there are more fundamental consitutional issues, not least those connected to indigenous recognition.

1 Like

Indeed.

It may be semantics but for the court to rule on it they need to interpret it. Politicians make laws, judges interpret them.

There is heaps of interpretation in the law as its usually written briefly to cover as large a range of scenarios rather than step through every situation. Which is the case with this part of the constitution, a couple of sentences only. But generally you need a court to interpret what the impact of the law is. For example the classic castle movie “on just terms”, also reasonable suspicion, right to privacy etc. They are succinct terms based off a couple of words that have far ranging impact. It’s a judges job to define that impact with reference to other laws and by interpreting the intent of the law.

Agree they need to resolve it ASAP before it becomes a farce, if it hasn’t already.

Roberts and Ludlam may be the most clear- cut, as foreign born Australian citizens by a naturalisation process , who did not take steps to renounce citizenship by birth.
Canavan’s dual citizenship by descent is a different mattter as his Italian citizenship was acquired , rather than automatic. I find it a stretch of the imagination that he had no knowledge of his mother’s actions. At the time, his father was on on a criminal charge and there would have been family discussions about options .
In the case of Joyce and Nash ( automatic citizenship by descent) it may be a question of whether they should have known and taken steps like Shorten did to renounce.
In their statements, some of them seem to be staking claims that they have never exercised their rights as citizens of a foreign power and, in the case of Waters, that they have had no connection with their birth country.
For Xenophon, his second class British Overseas citizenship - in regard to rights conferred - might also be a factor.
To my mind, George Williams is the most reliable consitutional commenter on these issues. He is also raising the question of the legitimacy of Ministerial decisions under the three month rule provision of the Constitution in regard to members not elected. So, the stakes might be higher for the Government re Joyce, Nash and Canavan.

I heard someone talk about it today and they have definitely made “modern” interpretations in the past including marriage, ironically, to be between two people before the change to man and woman.

I’d have thought a significant issue re the time constitution was written, was that most (British descent anyway) residents of commonwealth countries were British subjects, and other countries like New Zealand and Canada didn’t really have their own citizenships. When they did write them, they started writing in citizenship by descent rules.

It could be argued that the current system didn’t apply when the constitution was written.

My attitude is that if you’ve applied to vote or get a work permit or passport in another country you have descent or birth rights, then you should have to renounce that citizenship before standing for parliament.

But if you’ve always considered yourself Australian by birth, passport etc and never taken advantage of any other entitlements, then let them stand.

Under that rule, only Canavan would be in trouble, unless he knew nothing of his mum’s actions and can prove it.

Except for Dastyari . I don’t like him and think he’s an agent of China.

5 Likes

I’m the meantime North Korea pretty much state they will nuke is if we follow USA in any military action against them

1 Like

So if they send one of their 2014 tested missiles to brisbane I still need a fall out shelter 120kms away, sheesh

Depends which way the wind’s blowing, I think.
Besides, Honolulu’s closer to Pyongyang than Brissy.
So if they could…

Edit: Kind of dark link, huh.

Indeed, gonna head to Bunnings in the morning for concrete and a spade just in case

Hope there aren’t too many 500 megaton nukes out there.

Ok, I have to stop the carnage.

1 Like