• Julie Bishop to become acting prime minister in Malcolm Turnbull's absence
    2 replies, posted
[quote=ABC News]Deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop will be the acting prime minister during Malcolm Turnbull's upcoming visit to Israel. Key points: - There will be no deputy prime minister until after the New England by-election - Julie Bishop to be acting prime minister — a role normally filled by a Nationals member - Turnbull says Scullion is not annoyed at being overlooked in favour of Bishop The High Court yesterday dumped Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce from the Parliament because he was a dual citizen at the last election. With the court also ejecting deputy Nationals leader Fiona Nash, Cabinet this morning discussed who should fill in from Monday. Mr Turnbull said the "special interim circumstances" meant the junior Coalition partner would miss out on the role. "Barnaby Joyce remains the leader of the federal Nationals but, of course, he is not currently in the Parliament," Mr Turnbull said. "Therefore the normal order of precedence in terms of acting prime minister falls to Julie Bishop as the deputy leader of the Liberal Party and Foreign Minister." Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion is the most senior remaining Nationals politician. Some Nationals wanted him to take the post, given the party traditionally takes the role when a Liberal PM is abroad. But the Government confirmed it would leave the role of deputy prime minister vacant until after Mr Joyce's December 2 by-election, meaning Ms Bishop was next in line. Some Liberals were also furious the regional party had caused the Government's citizenship mess.[/quote] Read more at [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-28/julie-bishop-to-be-acting-prime-minister-in-turnbulls-absence/9095914[/url] Related: An opinion piece by Rosalind Dixon; [b]What the High Court citizenship decision says about the health of our democracy[/b] [quote=Rosalind Dixon; ABC News]In many ways, today's High Court decision has a greater political than legal significance. Politically, it requires the deputy prime minister to step aside and face a by-election, putting at risk the Government's narrow majority. It could also potentially raise questions about the validity of certain decisions the deputy prime minister made as a minister. But from a legal perspective, it is a quite straightforward decision. [b]A strict standard[/b] It has extended the approach the High Court took in an earlier case, Sykes v Clearly, holding that section 44 bars MPs from being citizens of another country according to the definition of citizenship provided by foreign law. The approach the court took then, and now, is that an MP is not eligible to run for Parliament unless they take all reasonable steps — under the procedures established by foreign law — to renounce foreign citizenship. ... [b]Deeper meaning for democracy[/b] The decision is a unanimous decision, jointly authored by all seven members of the court, and runs to only 44 pages (long by ordinary standards, and given the timeline for decision, but short for a decision that has to grapple with the separate facts for seven MPs). This simplicity, however, ultimately masks a deeper political and legal importance to the decision in what it says about Australian democracy. [b]The decision points to the fundamental health of Australian democracy in two ways:[/b] first, the Government has already announced its intention to comply with the decision, by announcing the date of a by-election in Mr Joyce's seat of New England. There has been no criticism by the Government of the court, and certainly been no suggestion the Government might choose to ignore the decision, because of its politically inconvenient consequences. Contrast this with recent statements by US President Donald Trump on Twitter attacking members of the federal judiciary as "so-called judges", for decisions to enforce the constitution and block the Trump administration's travel ban, or the Polish Government's move to ignore a decision of the Constitutional Tribunal regarding the constitutionality of appointments to the tribunal. Not every country that counts itself a democracy has been able to count, in recent years, on government respect for controversial — or deeply inconvenient — judicial decisions.[/quote] Read more at [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-27/high-court-citizenship-ruling-health-check-for-our-democracy/9094214[/url]
Doesn't the foreign minister usually travel with the PM when he goes overseas? If so, does that mean we don't have an at-home deputy, or have an at-home foreign minister?
[QUOTE=Bradyns;52839271]Doesn't the foreign minister usually travel with the PM when he goes overseas? If so, does that mean we don't have an at-home deputy, or have an at-home foreign minister?[/QUOTE] iirc It's either the Foreign Minister or the PM that goes overseas. If it's relatively minor, eg an appearance at the UN, it's going to be the Foreign Minister. Otherwise, the PM will call the shots and decide who goes.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.