• Birther Movement Down Under: Was Abbott eligible to stand for office?
    41 replies, posted
[QUOTE][QUOTE][IMG]http://9news.static9.net.au/~/media/images/2014/septembe4r/02/0209_abbott_a.ashx?w=718[/IMG][/QUOTE] A Queensland blogger looking for proof that the Prime Minister has renounced his British citizenship has raised the possibility that Tony Abbott may be ineligible to run for office in Australia. The blogger, who goes by the name Tony Magrathea, submitted freedom of information requests to the Prime Minister's office and the British Home Office seeking a copy of the RN form that British subjects use to renounce their citizenship. Both requests were refused, according to documents on his website. [B]Under the constitution of Australia, people who hold dual citizenship are not permitted to stand for election to Federal Parliament. [/B]"It is very clear, according to the Commonwealth Electoral Act of 1918, that to stand for election a person must be an Australian citizen," Professor Augusto Zimmerman of Murdoch University told ninemsn. "But Section 44 of the Constitution is very clear that for a person to stand for election, they must not hold the citizenship of any foreign power. So if a person has dual citizenship, and they have not renounced the former one, they are ineligible. Source: [URL="http://www.9news.com.au/national/2014/09/02/17/35/tony-abbott-may-have-been-ineligible-to-stand-for-election#kKz0gchp2OWXFdzc.99"]http://www.9news.com.au/national/2014/09/02/17/35/tony-abbott-may-have-been-ineligible-to-stand-for-election[/URL][/QUOTE] Funny thing is, we know that Abbott was born in the UK. It just whittles down to whether he still has UK Citizenship.
I'm really surprised this hasn't come up earlier.
The High Court will certainly have something to say about this. Edit: It appears the High Court [URL="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/DeakinLawRw/1999/8.pdf"]has precedence[/URL]; The UK is considered a foreign power.
Let's say it turns out he still has dual citizenship. What happens then? [editline]What's up?[/editline] It's not really equivalent to the birthers, no matter how many times it gets said. American birthers were predominately racist. And politicians/media heads who parroted that Obama was Kenyan were dog whistling to those racist Americans. It may seem like the two "movements" are similar, but the American birther movement would have pretty much gone nowhere if Obama wasn't black.
[QUOTE=Noth;45876406]Let's say it turns out he still has dual citizenship. What happens then? [editline]What's up?[/editline] It's not really equivalent to the birthers, no matter how many times it gets said. American birthers were predominately racist. And politicians/media heads who parroted that Obama was Kenyan were dog whistling to those racist Americans. It may seem like the two "movements" are similar, but the American birther movement would have pretty much gone nowhere if Obama wasn't black.[/QUOTE] Personally I think if it's true that Abbott is still a dual-citizen, the Governor-General will have no choice but to dissolve parliament. It would be practically illegal for Abbott to continue standing because even if he renounces it now, it would be a national scandal for a incumbent prime minister to be serving, breaking the Commonwealth Electoral Act & the Constitution (sec. 44) and basically rendering the Government powerless (except for the governor general).
Wow. Magrathea is an actual name
He definitely looks Kenyan to me
I doubt the UK Government would release such information about Abbott, if it existed or not. And, I doubt that the GG would be forced dissolve Parliament in the instance that it was discovered that he still has UK citizenship.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;45876830]I doubt the UK Government would release such information about Abbott, if it existed or not. And, I doubt that the GG would be forced dissolve Parliament in the instance that it was discovered that he still has UK citizenship.[/QUOTE] If it were found that the sitting prime minister were elected unconstitutionally, the governor-general would have no choice but to dissolve Parliament.
Abbott looks more like an ape than Obama
Well, like, I wouldn't be [i]disappointed[/i] if Abbott got the boot. But this is too simple. Not even Abbott is daft enough to have not renounced his British citizenship prior to his election.
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;45877135]But this is[B] too simple.[/B] Not even Abbott is daft enough to have not renounced his British citizenship prior to his election.[/QUOTE] Complacency is a bitch like that...
Considering he sent pauline Hanson to jail over a technicality I wouldn't be surprised if this removes him from office (if true)
I thought that if you were a citizen of any Commonwealth nation, that restrictions for issues such as this are not as strict as they otherwise would be in any other Commonwealth nation? Like, I might be pulling this out of my ass but I thought it was relatively easy for say an Australian to do such things like standing for office in the UK. Don't forget that when the constitution was put in place (and during that act of 1918), Australians were still British subjects, which we aren't quite so after some laws passed a few decades ago. Edit: Yes, we were British subjects before 1949, which is after that electoral act of 1918 was put in place, which was cited by the article. [editline]3rd September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=shutter_eye5;45876546]Personally I think if it's true that Abbott is still a dual-citizen, the Governor-General will have no choice but to dissolve parliament. It would be practically illegal for Abbott to continue standing because even if he renounces it now, it would be a national scandal for a incumbent prime minister to be serving, breaking the Commonwealth Electoral Act and basically rendering the Government powerless (except for the governor general).[/QUOTE] Shut up honestly. We don't need to have this talk of double dissolutions every time something even slightly bad about the federal Coalition reaches the media. A double dissolution wouldn't happen anyways; the only things that would happen would be Abbott losing his federal seat of Warringah (which would lead to a by-election for that seat), and Warren Truss would become interim Prime Minister.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45877350]I thought that if you were a citizen of any Commonwealth nation, that restrictions for issues such as this are not as strict as they otherwise would be in any other Commonwealth nation? Like, I might be pulling this out of my ass but I thought it was relatively easy for say an Australian to do such things like standing for office in the UK. Don't forget that when the constitution was put in place (and during that act of 1918), Australians were still British subjects, which we aren't quite so after some laws passed a few decades ago. Edit: Yes, we were British subjects before 1949, which is after that electoral act of 1918 was put in place, which was cited by the article. [editline]3rd September 2014[/editline] Shut up honestly. We don't need to have this talk of double dissolutions every time something even slightly bad about the federal Coalition reaches the media. A double dissolution wouldn't happen anyways; the only things that would happen would be Abbott losing his federal seat of Warringah (which would lead to a by-election for that seat), and Warren Truss would become interim Prime Minister.[/QUOTE] But it goes against the Constitution which is already a reason to do so; " [QUOTE] (i) is under any acknowledgment 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 a citizen of a foreign power;[/QUOTE] " (source: [URL="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/~/link.aspx?_id=074367F0015D42C2B005207F5642376A&_z=z"]http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/~/link.aspx?_id=074367F0015D42C2B005207F5642376A&_z=z[/URL] another source: [URL="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html"]http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html[/URL] If not, it shows that there's obviously a need for constitutional reform.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;45876974]If it were found that the sitting prime minister were elected unconstitutionally, the governor-general would have no choice but to dissolve Parliament.[/QUOTE] Under what authority? I don't believe the GG can just dissolve Parliament as they see fit.
pfft who cares? To join a party, get sponsored as leader and then elected requires some level of sincerely held allegiance to Australia, otherwise he wouldn't have fucking bothered. Abbott's a complete arse but this is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;45877493]Under what authority? I don't believe the GG can just dissolve Parliament as they see fit.[/QUOTE] But if outlined within the constitution as a reason for dissolution, they have no choice or they would be rendering the constitution useless, because isn't that what the Governor-General is there for? Isn't he supposed to uphold the constitution as a representative of the Crown on which he is liable?
Actually the GG has the reserve power to dissolve parliament as they see fit. My first response has a link to a high court decision on this very issue, and established that even though the MoP had citizenship from a commonwealth nation, they were still in violation of §44.
[QUOTE=shutter_eye5;45877489]But it goes against the Constitution which is already a reason to do so. If not, it shows that there's obviously a need for constitutional reform.[/QUOTE] Even if Abbott was in the bad and violated the constitution, it is no grounds for the Governor-General to dissolve both houses. Double dissolutions are only used in dire scenarios such as if no party or coalition of parties can command the support of at least half of the seats in the House of Representatives, if the Senate repeatedly blocks supply or if the Prime Minister formally asks the Governor-General to dissolve both houses (which would only really happen regarding that second scenario anyways). A double dissolution wouldn't be justified because the government commands support in the House of Representatives and the Senate is passing supply and is doing no wrong in general. Abbott isn't the only MP who forms government, if he loses his seat we will have a new Prime Minister who is already elected from the House of Representatives. When Gillard and Labor ditched Rudd, a double dissolution didn't happen. The parliament doesn't need to be dissolved every time a scandal happens; Geoff Shaw Victoria MP's abuse of parliamentary privileges didn't cause a double dissolution in that parliament did it? [editline]3rd September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=shutter_eye5;45877524]But if outlined within the constitution as a reason for dissolution, they have no choice or they would be rendering the constitution useless, because isn't that what the Governor-General is there for? Isn't he supposed to uphold the constitution as a representative of the Crown on which he is liable?[/QUOTE] The constitution would be upheld by expelling Tony Abbott from parliament, not dissolving both chambers of it and effectively giving the boot to all 226 MPs and Senators. Seriously, if you think a double dissolution would be reasonable for this issue you would be insane, and this is coming from someone who's never given a high preference during an election to either the Liberal or National parties.
[QUOTE=shutter_eye5;45877524]But if outlined within the constitution as a reason for dissolution, they have no choice or they would be rendering the constitution useless, because isn't that what the Governor-General is there for? Isn't he supposed to uphold the constitution as a representative of the Crown on which he is liable?[/QUOTE] But it's not outlined as a reason for dissolution. [QUOTE=Bradyns;45877527]Actually the GG has the reserve power to dissolve parliament as they see fit.[/quote] I don't think the HCA would take too kindly to the GG dissolving all of Parliament for only an issue with one member. It's certainly not a well agreed reserve power that the GG can dissolve Parliament as they see fit. [QUOTE=Bradyns;45877527]My first response has a link to a high court decision on this very issue, and established that even though the MoP had citizenship from a commonwealth nation, they were still in violation of §44.[/QUOTE] What that established was that they could not sit as a Member of Parliament. They were not yet sworn in. Not only that, the Court could not decide if they had the capacity to sit as the Court of Disputed Returns, and you can be certain, if it involves someone like the Prime Minister, they'd be even more uncertain. [editline]3rd September 2014[/editline] By the way, section s45 (i) of the Commonwealth Constitution provides the mechanism if a member is found to be in violation of s44.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45877573]Even if Abbott was in the bad and violated the constitution, it is no grounds for the Governor-General to dissolve both houses. Double dissolutions are only used in dire scenarios such as if no party or coalition of parties can command the support of at least half of the seats in the House of Representatives, if the Senate repeatedly blocks supply or if the Prime Minister formally asks the Governor-General to dissolve both houses (which would only really happen regarding that second scenario anyways). A double dissolution wouldn't be justified because the government commands support in the House of Representatives and the Senate is passing supply and is doing no wrong in general. Abbott isn't the only MP who forms government, if he loses his seat we will have a new Prime Minister who is already elected from the House of Representatives. When Gillard and Labor ditched Rudd, a double dissolution didn't happen. The parliament doesn't need to be dissolved every time a scandal happens; Geoff Shaw Victoria MP's abuse of parliamentary privileges didn't cause a double dissolution in that parliament did it? [editline]3rd September 2014[/editline] The constitution would be upheld by expelling Tony Abbott from parliament, not dissolving both chambers of it and effectively giving the boot to all 226 MPs and Senators. Seriously, if you think a double dissolution would be reasonable for this issue you would be insane, and this is coming from someone who's never given a high preference during an election to either the Liberal or National parties.[/QUOTE] So in essence what you are saying is to dissolve parliament by dismissing all 226 parliamentary seats but without the general election? Because that generally what a double dissolution is, certainly with the election. But then again this is usually when deadlock is occurrent within both houses of parliament on a certain bill, i.e. " a proposed law" when this issue is about whether the PM is violating the constitution by being PM and forgetting to renounce allegiance to Her Majesty's United Kingdom and wholly devoting that to the Federation of Australia [editline]3rd September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=DogGunn;45877647]But it's not outlined as a reason for dissolution. I don't think the HCA would take too kindly to the GG dissolving all of Parliament for only an issue with one member. It's certainly not a well agreed reserve power that the GG can dissolve Parliament as they see fit. What that established was that they could not sit as a Member of Parliament. They were not yet sworn in. Not only that, the Court could not decide if they had the capacity to sit as the Court of Disputed Returns, and you can be certain, if it involves someone like the Prime Minister, they'd be even more uncertain. [editline]3rd September 2014[/editline] By the way, section s45 (i) of the Commonwealth Constitution provides the mechanism if a member is found to be in violation of s44.[/QUOTE] So in that it just means he would be replaced by Warren Truss as someone said earlier or whoever the LNP decides to elect (as in party consensus as who ever is party leader to replace Tony)
[QUOTE=shutter_eye5;45877759]So in that it just means he would be replaced by Warren Truss as someone said earlier or whoever the LNP decides to elect (as in party consensus as who ever is party leader to replace Tony)[/QUOTE] Nah, he'd just be re-elected by his electorate.
Please god be true.
[QUOTE=shutter_eye5;45877759]So in essence what you are saying is to dissolve parliament by dismissing all 226 parliamentary seats but without the general election? Because that generally what a double dissolution is, certainly with the election. But then again this is usually when deadlock is occurrent within both houses of parliament on a certain bill, i.e. " a proposed law" when this issue is about whether the PM is violating the constitution by being PM and forgetting to renounce allegiance to Her Majesty's United Kingdom and wholly devoting that to the Federation of Australia[/QUOTE] No I'm saying don't dissolve the parliament at all. I don't know how you can interpret anything I've said as meaning to dissolve it, because I am against dissolving parliament because of this isolated issue. I don't understand your post anyways, earlier you said that the Governor-General should dissolve parliament if the allegations about Abbott are true, but now you're creating the distinction between a [b]supply[/b] bill (not just any bill, only one that deals with tax revenue and expenditure) failing to pass the Senate as creating the conditions for a double dissolution, and the allegations around Abbott being a different issue altogether and so I assume you mean a different response should be taken if the allegations are true. So which stance is it that you take? Can anyone else actually make sense of his post?
Grasping at straws now, this is fucking dumb. Abbott might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he was the reason Pauline Hanson (part of the the racist bogan party) got put in jail over a minor technicality, I'm pretty damn sure Abbott isn't stupid enough to miss a crucial detail like that. And this wouldn't dissolve parliament.. Liberals have enough seats to just put another person in, and there's no reason to dissolve parliament over 1 MP
[QUOTE=The Aussie;45877849]Please god be true.[/QUOTE] So Warren Truss could become Prime Minister? What would possibly change? I withdraw that last bit actually, because the Liberal and Nationals coalition would probably be more effective without Abbott leading it and might have better chances at the next federal election.
[QUOTE]No I'm saying don't dissolve the parliament at all. I don't know how you can interpret anything I've said as meaning to dissolve it, because I am against dissolving parliament because of this isolated issue.[/QUOTE] I agree, the LNP will just choose a new leader.. but, there would be a media shit-fest the likes of which haven't ravaged since Gillard in '10. If it is true, It seems disingenuous to have a party headed by someone unconstitutionally, go to, and win an election.
snip herp
[QUOTE=Tasm;45878079]But by that logic you could say that labor running for the last two elections was disingenuous when Rudd and Gillard were playing musical chairs, swapping around candidates before elections.[/QUOTE] Rudd, and Gillard weren't in violation of the constitution (if this were to be true) though. The party has every right to change its leader, but, if the leader, as a Member of Parliament, is there unconstitutionally.. then you've got a whole different kettle of fish.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.