Dual Citizenship Crisis - s 44(i)

[think positive]

I was actually really nervous, and when I got there a guy had just failed, and the supervisor was telling him he had to go back outside and get permission to retry it! I sat down did the test in about 5 min and then Pushed submit, and the pc crashed! The supervisor says “oh sorry, it’s playing up a bit, you will have to do it again”. So I get another seat he sets it up, takes me 4 min all different questions, and I push submit and bang, 100%! He says well done, for passing it, probably twice! Meanwhile all the people there before me are still going! I’m really glad I studied!

Great day, had lunch with the eldest, man her office is swish! Then did some shopping. And I’m an Aussie, yes I’m an Aussie, yes I am! - until the cricket comes on!

[stui magpie]

Well done.

next test, a pie fresh from the bakers oven washed down with a stubbie at 8am

[Pies4shaw]

Congratulations, TP. You're half-way to being Prime Minister. Just one small citizenship to lose....

Here's a song for you to celebrate with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef3beK367tA

[stui magpie]

^

Yeah nah. I think TP would appreciate this more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcdL3rwIYH0

[Pies4shaw]

5:0 - this is good score in soccer, is not it?

[David]

Congrats, TP!

By the way, the Cosmopolitan Seven are finally having their day(s) in court next week. The government is arguing for only those politicians who knew they were born overseas (Scott Ludlam and Malcolm Roberts) to be declared ineligible, while those Australian-born (or born to Australian parents) politicians who acquired citizenship supposedly without their knowledge (Larissa Waters, Nick Xenophon, Fiona Nash, Matt Canavan and Bananaby) should not be seen to have fallen foul of electoral law. That might sound like common sense, but there’s actually little basis in either the constitutional section as written or legal precedent for such a distinction to be made. Roberts to me is the only one who clearly doesn’t have a leg to stand on; the rest have varying circumstances, from the seemingly very unlucky (Xenophon, Joyce) to those whose stories seem a little more questionable (Ludlam, Canavan). According to precedent, they’re all out on their arses.

Personally, I’m conflicted. While I’d love to see the government lose its majority and for unpleasant types like Roberts and Canavan to (at least temporarily) get their marching orders, I also despise this law and think that any softening in its interpretation would only be a good thing (the next best thing would be if all the parliamentary carnage resulted in some actual political will to get the law off the books altogether, but that seems somewhat less likely).

There’s one hypothetical I haven’t seen dealt with in all of this: we know that if the senators are found to be ineligible, there will be a recount and they’ll almost certainly be replaced by the next party member on the ticket. In some cases, that person may decide to do the nice thing (or be given an offer they can’t refuse) and step aside so that the formerly ineligible politician can resume their seat. I can certainly see such a thing happening with Xenophon and the government ministers, and perhaps Roberts too (if Hanson isn’t sick of him). My question is: what effect does this have on the 6 year vs 3 year terms as a result of the double dissolution? Does everyone get bumped up one, or does, say, Xenophon’s replacement get a double term? Anyone know?

[think positive]

[think positive]

[think positive]

[think positive]

[HAL]

What does it look like?

[David]

Well, this is unexpected:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/06/nick-xenophon-resigns-from-senate-to-run-for-state-parliament

He mustn't have been feeling confident about winning the case. Not many instances of sitting federal MPs moving back to state politics of their own volition!

[HAL]

How about that. You don't say.

[Jezza]

[Pies4shaw]

The High Court tells me it is handing down these 7 judgments at 2.15 pm on Friday.

Quelle excitement!