Thank you, Professor. I am so glad to have found you. While obsessed with American politics, I am woefully ignorant of political and legal issues in Australia, my life long home. It's never too late to learn, and I look forward to exploring your channel for more stories like this. I am grateful for your clear explanations and non patronising delivery. Refreshing.
They're an empire in all but name, and by some metrics more destructive than many empires in world history. I wish we'd cut, or at least significantly loosen our diplomatic ties with them, but I understand why we don't.
Thank you for the amazing information. I wouldn't expect him to though, after the torture he has been put through. I hope, after he's readapted to civilian life, he gets to know his children. It's hard on the whole family when someone returns after being away for a very long time. My return from deployment was tough that way, my youngest was scared of the stranger suddenly living in the house, for a few days. It's going to be hard, but they've made it this far
I think you must take active steps to remain on the electoral rolls. Those residing in Australia are required to keep the EC informed of their current address - to determine what electorates they may vote in. I advised the EC in advance that I was going overseas for an extended period and my enrolment in my existing electorate was retained. I voted in one election but didn't get to a consulate to vote in the next election and I think that was why they removed me from the roll after that.
Australia is unusual in that we do disqualify Australians from voting if they are out of the country for too long. Under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, a person can register as an overseas elector if they intend to return to Australia within six years. If they are leaving Australia indefinitely, then they are removed from the electoral roll.
I would be interested in your views about how §44 (i.) applied (or rather, failed to apply) to Hungary's grant of citizenship to Josh Frydenberg. It seems to me that §44(i.) (which, incidentally, seems to disqualify me from serving in the Commonwealth Parliament) is a clumsy provision that was drafted to obfuscate and evade thorny issues of British subjecthood and Australian nationality c. 1900, and that it has been stranded by the creation of Australian citizenship in 1949 and by the development of dual or multiple citizenship (an unthinkable condition in 1901). The upshot being that it now has an effect that was never intended - such as disqualifying a person because his father was born in the U.K. before 1949.
The Frydenberg case is dealt with in great detail by the Federal Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns in Staindl v Frydenberg [2020] FCAFC 41 (www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2020/41.html). It turned on evidence about the application of Hungarian law and the failure of the petitioner to satisfy the onus of proof. It is worth reading, if you are interested. On the broader question, yes s 44(i) is a creature of its time and really needs updating. But that would require a referendum, and it is unlikely to succeed, so we are stuck with it.
Yes, but why would he? Our politics is pretty toxic at the best of times. He was, and always be an international human rights activist. A politician is a professional liar and the enemy of such a person.
One of the Eureka Stockade ringleaders took a seat in Victorian parliament while still a Wanted fugitive... I think Lalor was his surname, perhaps Peter Lalor? This perhaps also goes back to the Period when national parliament also sat in Victoria (depending on federation, iffy I spose). On a personal note, my uncle and John Cain spent a night in St Kilda lockup with Bob Hawke on the eve of the 1983 Vic state election. They left jail the newly elected MLA of St Kilda and new State Premier. Hawkie shortly after became Prime Minister.... True story. Go big or go home
Lalor had an arm shot off during the attack on the stockade, but was acquitted in court before he was elected to the Victorian Parliament. He eventually became the speaker of the Legislative Assembly.
Okay, thanks for clearing that up , both of you. I know I read somewhere he was under an assumed name and still persona non grata.. maybe reading that as Wanted. He lost an arm but no aussie jury would finger him as guilty. Maybe I have confused that with "..survived Eureka" and went to ground...
I would've thought someone that has admitted to and being charged with committing the crime of espionage would not be a good and proper person to be in the Australian parliament.... Just saying.... Because by the same logic Klaus Fuchs if he was an Australian Citizen... would he be also welcome in to the Australian Parliament?
I think the point is that it's a matter for the Australian people (or at least those in the electorate in which he ran) to make the judgment, taking into account his past convictions. In the UK, an Australian man who was convicted of treason in the UK was later elected to the UK Parliament and served there with distinction. I'll do a video about it one day, as it's a great story.
Ist the 4% rule for reinmbursemnet legal under the constitution? Is ita n act of parliament which discriminates against individuals and falls foul of the constitution. Was the 4% rule made up by members of parliament and therefor the members of parliament have a conflict of interest?
The 4% rule is about public funding and paying back a deposit. It falls under the general electoral law. The Constitution leaves such matters to Parliament to determine. There is no obligation to provide any public funding in relation to elections.
Some of them go back to the late 1980s when I started as a lawyer. The advantage of getting old (and keeping all your suit jackets) is that you have plenty of variety. I also live near a place that sells good second hand clothes, so many of them are living their second life. This is not 'fast fashion' - it is very very slow fashion!
Quite so - my main legal books are in my study (which is where I do television interviews, so you can check out the different bookcase there). The bookcase behind my Clarion videos contains a mixture of books. There are two rows of overseas constitutional books, which are the overflow from my study. The eagle-eyed amongst you might have spotted constitutional law books from Pakistan, India, the Caribbean, South Africa, the US and Canada. But the rest of them are general reference books or other non-fiction.
It has been stated in the media (but I don't have access to the primary documents) that his citizenship was withdrawn by Ecuador and that he is not a dual citizen.
Thank you for clarifying how deliberately wishy-washy and ambiguous our constitution is, setting the precedent for virtually all legislation to be constructed this way.
Hey Prof Twomey, big fan. I was watching a video the other day about the idea to remove state government entirely, in order to eliminate what was perceived as 'excessive bureaucracy'. The argument was that Australia would likely be more effectively run if state powers were delegating to either Federal government for national cohesion, or local government for community input. I understand that undertaking such a task would likely be a practical impossibility, but I was really curious for any insight regarding the constitutional viability of any such action? It seems almost imperceivable, but do mechanisms exist to pull off such a task at all? Thanks! (the video in question ua-cam.com/video/gM1YaqzRwd4/v-deo.html)
Because of the penultimate paragraph of s 128 of the Constitution, to remove the States you would have to get majority support in every single State, which is extremely unlikely. Further, if you look at other democratic countries of any size (either population or geography) they have at least three levels of government, or more. The only exception I can think of is New Zealand (which is much smaller in geographical size). The UK is tricky, because of devolution and different levels of local government. Overall, we are not over-governed by having three levels of government - it is pretty much standard practice around the world, and inevitable in a geographically large country.
That, in itself, is not enough. One must also satisfy the 'qualification' requirements of the electoral law and not breach the disqualification requirements in the Constitution. Hence, the video.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 But there is no disqualification. He has enough time to dot the Is and cross the t's. Wkileks Parrty came close to winning a seat in WA
Obviously section 34 i and section 16 only limit Assange for three years so presumably as long as he passes those criteria he is subject to the restrictions of section 44. However if we consider the political and international pressures that might be placed on the Commonwealth do you think that it is possible for the commonwealth to enter in to a treaty to make certain offences committed by a person in other countries also apply to said person in Australia such that said person can’t use running for office to place strain on Australia’s international relationships? Once again a Really engaging video. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge and expertise with others :)
Section 34 is one of those 'until the Parliament otherwise provides' provisions, and the Parliament has otherwise provided, so there are different rules in the Commonwealth Electoral Act now. The problem with creating a new disqualification, however, is that disqualifications are entrenched in s 44 (which does not permit the Parliament to 'otherwise provide'). So the Parliament does not have the power to add new disqualifications, even if it relied on its external affairs power.
@constitutionalclarion1901 thanks for the clarification, I should have read s31 more carefully and considered its relationship with other laws. This might sound bizarre but it is interesting to see how different elements in the constitution place political constrains on the government when it tries to address difficult issues like this. It’s also really interesting how there is a complex overlay between political constraints, in the case of Julian Assange diplomatic constraints, and legal/constitutional constraints on how an issue can be resolved. Once again thanks for sharing your thoughts and expertise :)
Why would anyone want an irresponsible narcissist, with a known inability to be trusted with sensitive data, to be a politician? Wouldn't that be akin to give the keys of a gasoline station to a pyromaniac?
But then I'd have to be filming the Queensland Government's steamship, The Lucinda, and I'm afraid it's long since gone. However, there is a replica of the 'smoking room' in which they wrote a draft of the Constitution, in the Maritime Museum in Brisbane. You can also see the real ship's steering wheel and the cutlery, etc. A good excursion for a constitutional nerd. (I took lots of photos and might use them for a video one day.)
Agreed. However placing himself where his voice is amplified and much more protected, could really disrupt what is wrong with our politics and that of our bully friend.
It is so disgusting that Google has taught you to hate politicians and stereotype to the point where you just attack anybody without actually having a reason for each individual cases, stereotyping seems to be a lot easier for those who don't want to think. I'm not defending the bad ones but all I'm saying is we need politics to run the country because the average adult on tiktok is not capable of looking after themselves
S 77(i) allows Parliament to define the jurisdiction of other federal courts. Section 76(i) allows Parliament to confer original jurisdiction on the High Court in any matter arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation or arising under any laws made by the Parliament. There have been quite a few challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court of Disputed Returns, but so far its validity has been upheld.
It would be interesting to know more about when Australians who also held British citizenship lost their right to be an Australian MP. Presumably at some point there were a large number of dual citizens given how immigration law has developed and when the Australian constitution was written citizenship may not have been distinct. Also could a Brit, or a dual citizen, be appointed Governor General? It's interesting to note that in the UK, we're much more flexible about Commonwealth citizens voting and becoming MPs in the UK Parliament
Thanks. A good idea for a future video. The short answer is that the High Court declared in a case called Sue v Hill in 1999 that the UK was a 'foreign power' and that dual UK/Australian citizens were disqualified from Parliament. But it could not identify the exact date that this change occurred (which was one reason a dissenting judge criticised the judgment). The problem is that Australia gained independence from the UK in a series of tiny steps, and there is no certainty as to what was the last step. It is likely that the answer is different depending on the particular issue - eg independence re declaring war may have occurred at a different time from independence re citizenship or independence re judicial power. As for the Governor-General, I'm not aware of any restriction on dual citizenship there.
No. First, it's not my job to notify parties of anything. Second, if you watch the video, there are constitutional heads of power which may support it, depending upon the legislation enacted.
Those opoesed to compulsary vaccination were not all anti vax I can state that as a fact because I am one of those who had many vaccines in my life yet decided against the clot shot because something didn't feel right. I have not yet watched all of your video. I am only at 2:16 yet I am already suspecting a bias.
Good point - not all opposed to compulsory vaccination are anti-vaxxers, but I still think that this was the constituency that he was trying to attract.
I have no opinion on Assange for or against him or his recent history. I would not vote for this party. I am however disappointed with the snide remark from the presenter inferring without evidence that Assange adopted the policy of anti vaxxing to appeal to anti vaxxers to get their vote. In an otherwise excellent presentation, this unsupported speculation tainted the presentation.
CC, I had to Stop and Remember with this JA Video. JA has Found Himself in a Web of Politics, Tinged with Some Legalities, Tinged with Our Relationship with Britain, Tinged with Relationship Matters, Tinged with Family Matters, Tinged with the Media, Tinged with Modern Internet Capabilities, Tinged with 9/11. So JA Could Run for Australian Politics but this is Irrelevant to His Well Being and the Well Being of His Family. So Like a Lot of Australians He Remains a Concern that We have No Answer for.
IIRC, they weren't charges. It was a summons for questioning. And the woman who made the allegations later dropped or failed to follow through on said allegations.
@@TheRonster1957 They were real charges. You don't have to "iirc" - look it up. There's a wikipedia page. The prosecutor tried again in 2019 to extradite Assange back to Sweden to answer the charges. The charges were NOT "dropped" - one expired because the big baby hid in the Ecuadorian Embassy, and the other was withdrawn because it had no prospect of proceeding BECAUSE THE BIG BABY WAS HIDING IN THE EMBASSY!
@@TheRonster1957 "Ardin still wishes he had faced trial for the alleged assault against her. “But he won’t. So I have to let it go.” She says some of her doubters don’t take her seriously because they don’t think the details of her experience, or reaction, were dramatic enough. She suggests there’s an expectation of sexual assault to always be brutal, involve a lot of violence, and leave the victim heavily traumatised - and if that doesn’t happen you can’t be a real victim, or a real offender. But that doesn’t align with what Ardin describes as the reality of her experience. She stresses that doesn’t make it any less serious or unacceptable. She slams many of Assange's supporters - and journalists - for seeking a “one-sided narrative” which turns him into a hero, and her into an evil CIA agent. “I think that we have a problem that we have to have these heroes that are flawless… I don’t think heroes exist outside fairytales.”" www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd1jgv3knnwo
Ok then, Section 44 comes into play, BUT this US law is broken and NOT Aussie law, The High Court is over to you for this Ice cream headache (sitting as Court of Disputed Returns (Australia). I'm getting an ice cream Headache over this.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I did, thanks, But you still have a Court of Disputed Returns (Australia) case if Julian Made it to parament, as Section 44 and I think the Ecuadorian Govt gave him a Passport when was in the London Ecuadorian embassy so that would need short out as well. political asylum, thing
People are allowed to have different view, and of course some things are highly contestable. The High Court often divides 4:3 on the difficult issues, so it is impossible to predict. But on the other hand, some things are more clear cut than others, so the answer is reasonably clear. I can only give my view, based on my understanding of how the High Court has previously interpreted the Constitution. It is a well informed view, but no one can know when the High Court will change tack. Hence, I'm not claiming infallibility!
![АЛАУДИНОВ у Скабеевой: эти их ВСУ нас НЕ ДОГОНЯТ 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/an0anqU4WGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
You know what, never a question that crossed my mind, but as always I learnt something I didn't know before, thanks.
Thank you, Professor. I am so glad to have found you. While obsessed with American politics, I am woefully ignorant of political and legal issues in Australia, my life long home. It's never too late to learn, and I look forward to exploring your channel for more stories like this. I am grateful for your clear explanations and non patronising delivery. Refreshing.
Thanks, much appreciated.
America has a long reach. Often outside of and beyond convention.
They're an empire in all but name, and by some metrics more destructive than many empires in world history.
I wish we'd cut, or at least significantly loosen our diplomatic ties with them, but I understand why we don't.
Thank you for the amazing information. I wouldn't expect him to though, after the torture he has been put through. I hope, after he's readapted to civilian life, he gets to know his children. It's hard on the whole family when someone returns after being away for a very long time. My return from deployment was tough that way, my youngest was scared of the stranger suddenly living in the house, for a few days. It's going to be hard, but they've made it this far
Thanks for this
You're welcome.
I thought he was in that Embassy to stop Sweden from extraditing him for alleged sex crimes bought by Swedish women!
Thanks for such an informative explanation of the Constitutional issues.😁👌👌👌
How does an Australian “lose his right to vote”? Shouldn’t holding citizenship entitle a person to vote regardless of residency status.
I think you must take active steps to remain on the electoral rolls. Those residing in Australia are required to keep the EC informed of their current address - to determine what electorates they may vote in. I advised the EC in advance that I was going overseas for an extended period and my enrolment in my existing electorate was retained. I voted in one election but didn't get to a consulate to vote in the next election and I think that was why they removed me from the roll after that.
Australia is unusual in that we do disqualify Australians from voting if they are out of the country for too long. Under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, a person can register as an overseas elector if they intend to return to Australia within six years. If they are leaving Australia indefinitely, then they are removed from the electoral roll.
Assange also applied for residency in a foreign country - Ecuador.
@@allangibson8494 But his citizenship never changed. You can have multiple residencies without changing citizenship status.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you for explaining
I would be interested in your views about how §44 (i.) applied (or rather, failed to apply) to Hungary's grant of citizenship to Josh Frydenberg. It seems to me that §44(i.) (which, incidentally, seems to disqualify me from serving in the Commonwealth Parliament) is a clumsy provision that was drafted to obfuscate and evade thorny issues of British subjecthood and Australian nationality c. 1900, and that it has been stranded by the creation of Australian citizenship in 1949 and by the development of dual or multiple citizenship (an unthinkable condition in 1901). The upshot being that it now has an effect that was never intended - such as disqualifying a person because his father was born in the U.K. before 1949.
The Frydenberg case is dealt with in great detail by the Federal Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns in Staindl v Frydenberg [2020] FCAFC 41 (www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2020/41.html). It turned on evidence about the application of Hungarian law and the failure of the petitioner to satisfy the onus of proof. It is worth reading, if you are interested.
On the broader question, yes s 44(i) is a creature of its time and really needs updating. But that would require a referendum, and it is unlikely to succeed, so we are stuck with it.
Yes, but why would he? Our politics is pretty toxic at the best of times. He was, and always be an international human rights activist. A politician is a professional liar and the enemy of such a person.
Yes he be better served to release information on the acts of Australian parliamentarian members!
Should make for some fascinating reading.
That's true true true thanks Les from Perth 🎯🎯🎯
I find these video's interesting, subscribed and 320 liked
Thanks. Welcome aboard.
Geoffrey Robinson Hypothetical..
One of the Eureka Stockade ringleaders took a seat in Victorian parliament while still a Wanted fugitive... I think Lalor was his surname, perhaps Peter Lalor? This perhaps also goes back to the Period when national parliament also sat in Victoria (depending on federation, iffy I spose).
On a personal note, my uncle and John Cain spent a night in St Kilda lockup with Bob Hawke on the eve of the 1983 Vic state election. They left jail the newly elected MLA of St Kilda and new State Premier. Hawkie shortly after became Prime Minister.... True story.
Go big or go home
There was no national parliament when Peter Lalor was in Victorian parliament. He died in 1889.
Lalor had an arm shot off during the attack on the stockade, but was acquitted in court before he was elected to the Victorian Parliament. He eventually became the speaker of the Legislative Assembly.
Okay, thanks for clearing that up , both of you. I know I read somewhere he was under an assumed name and still persona non grata.. maybe reading that as Wanted.
He lost an arm but no aussie jury would finger him as guilty. Maybe I have confused that with "..survived Eureka" and went to ground...
I would've thought someone that has admitted to and being charged with committing the crime of espionage would not be a good and proper person to be in the Australian parliament.... Just saying.... Because by the same logic Klaus Fuchs if he was an Australian Citizen... would he be also welcome in to the Australian Parliament?
I think the point is that it's a matter for the Australian people (or at least those in the electorate in which he ran) to make the judgment, taking into account his past convictions.
In the UK, an Australian man who was convicted of treason in the UK was later elected to the UK Parliament and served there with distinction. I'll do a video about it one day, as it's a great story.
Ist the 4% rule for reinmbursemnet legal under the constitution? Is ita n act of parliament which discriminates against individuals and falls foul of the constitution. Was the 4% rule made up by members of parliament and therefor the members of parliament have a conflict of interest?
The 4% rule is about public funding and paying back a deposit. It falls under the general electoral law. The Constitution leaves such matters to Parliament to determine. There is no obligation to provide any public funding in relation to elections.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Another decison by the BIG 2 to make sure that it is very hard to compete with them.
Let's assume he did stand again, I'd be very surprised were he to do any better than the last occasion.
I would love a tour of your scarf and suit wardrobe. 😊
I want to know how many of those books have been read.🤔
Some of them go back to the late 1980s when I started as a lawyer. The advantage of getting old (and keeping all your suit jackets) is that you have plenty of variety. I also live near a place that sells good second hand clothes, so many of them are living their second life. This is not 'fast fashion' - it is very very slow fashion!
Quite so - my main legal books are in my study (which is where I do television interviews, so you can check out the different bookcase there). The bookcase behind my Clarion videos contains a mixture of books. There are two rows of overseas constitutional books, which are the overflow from my study. The eagle-eyed amongst you might have spotted constitutional law books from Pakistan, India, the Caribbean, South Africa, the US and Canada. But the rest of them are general reference books or other non-fiction.
Senor assange is an Ecuadorean citizen, therefore not eligible to either vote in Australian elections or to stand for office
It has been stated in the media (but I don't have access to the primary documents) that his citizenship was withdrawn by Ecuador and that he is not a dual citizen.
Thank you for clarifying how deliberately wishy-washy and ambiguous our constitution is, setting the precedent for virtually all legislation to be constructed this way.
Where was the anti-vax community in 2013?
Hey Prof Twomey, big fan. I was watching a video the other day about the idea to remove state government entirely, in order to eliminate what was perceived as 'excessive bureaucracy'. The argument was that Australia would likely be more effectively run if state powers were delegating to either Federal government for national cohesion, or local government for community input.
I understand that undertaking such a task would likely be a practical impossibility, but I was really curious for any insight regarding the constitutional viability of any such action? It seems almost imperceivable, but do mechanisms exist to pull off such a task at all?
Thanks!
(the video in question ua-cam.com/video/gM1YaqzRwd4/v-deo.html)
Because of the penultimate paragraph of s 128 of the Constitution, to remove the States you would have to get majority support in every single State, which is extremely unlikely.
Further, if you look at other democratic countries of any size (either population or geography) they have at least three levels of government, or more. The only exception I can think of is New Zealand (which is much smaller in geographical size). The UK is tricky, because of devolution and different levels of local government.
Overall, we are not over-governed by having three levels of government - it is pretty much standard practice around the world, and inevitable in a geographically large country.
Yes
Oh shouldn't we wait for the book followed by the film and then make him Prime Minister.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
julian is a man of principle, and would never ruin his reputation by participating in parliament.
…which is why he ran in 2013.😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@greybirdo well, that ruined him, for me.
in short the answer is yes, he does have the right to nominate as he continues to maintain his citizenship.
That, in itself, is not enough. One must also satisfy the 'qualification' requirements of the electoral law and not breach the disqualification requirements in the Constitution. Hence, the video.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 But there is no disqualification. He has enough time to dot the Is and cross the t's. Wkileks Parrty came close to winning a seat in WA
Obviously section 34 i and section 16 only limit Assange for three years so presumably as long as he passes those criteria he is subject to the restrictions of section 44. However if we consider the political and international pressures that might be placed on the Commonwealth do you think that it is possible for the commonwealth to enter in to a treaty to make certain offences committed by a person in other countries also apply to said person in Australia such that said person can’t use running for office to place strain on Australia’s international relationships? Once again a Really engaging video. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge and expertise with others :)
Section 34 is one of those 'until the Parliament otherwise provides' provisions, and the Parliament has otherwise provided, so there are different rules in the Commonwealth Electoral Act now.
The problem with creating a new disqualification, however, is that disqualifications are entrenched in s 44 (which does not permit the Parliament to 'otherwise provide'). So the Parliament does not have the power to add new disqualifications, even if it relied on its external affairs power.
@constitutionalclarion1901 thanks for the clarification, I should have read s31 more carefully and considered its relationship with other laws. This might sound bizarre but it is interesting to see how different elements in the constitution place political constrains on the government when it tries to address difficult issues like this. It’s also really interesting how there is a complex overlay between political constraints, in the case of Julian Assange diplomatic constraints, and legal/constitutional constraints on how an issue can be resolved. Once again thanks for sharing your thoughts and expertise :)
For the quick answer go straight to 6:40.
Why would anyone want an irresponsible narcissist, with a known inability to be trusted with sensitive data, to be a politician? Wouldn't that be akin to give the keys of a gasoline station to a pyromaniac?
i get the ferry on sydney harbour at the start bit but shouldnt it be on the hawkesbury river 😁
But then I'd have to be filming the Queensland Government's steamship, The Lucinda, and I'm afraid it's long since gone. However, there is a replica of the 'smoking room' in which they wrote a draft of the Constitution, in the Maritime Museum in Brisbane. You can also see the real ship's steering wheel and the cutlery, etc. A good excursion for a constitutional nerd. (I took lots of photos and might use them for a video one day.)
Why would he want to lower himself
Agreed. However placing himself where his voice is amplified and much more protected, could really disrupt what is wrong with our politics and that of our bully friend.
It is so disgusting that Google has taught you to hate politicians and stereotype to the point where you just attack anybody without actually having a reason for each individual cases, stereotyping seems to be a lot easier for those who don't want to think. I'm not defending the bad ones but all I'm saying is we need politics to run the country because the average adult on tiktok is not capable of looking after themselves
Can the High Court sit as the court of disputed returns in the light of section 77(i)?
S 77(i) allows Parliament to define the jurisdiction of other federal courts. Section 76(i) allows Parliament to confer original jurisdiction on the High Court in any matter arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation or arising under any laws made by the Parliament. There have been quite a few challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court of Disputed Returns, but so far its validity has been upheld.
Oh god no, the little whiner needs to just disappear into obscurity
It would be interesting to know more about when Australians who also held British citizenship lost their right to be an Australian MP. Presumably at some point there were a large number of dual citizens given how immigration law has developed and when the Australian constitution was written citizenship may not have been distinct. Also could a Brit, or a dual citizen, be appointed Governor General? It's interesting to note that in the UK, we're much more flexible about Commonwealth citizens voting and becoming MPs in the UK Parliament
Thanks. A good idea for a future video. The short answer is that the High Court declared in a case called Sue v Hill in 1999 that the UK was a 'foreign power' and that dual UK/Australian citizens were disqualified from Parliament. But it could not identify the exact date that this change occurred (which was one reason a dissenting judge criticised the judgment). The problem is that Australia gained independence from the UK in a series of tiny steps, and there is no certainty as to what was the last step. It is likely that the answer is different depending on the particular issue - eg independence re declaring war may have occurred at a different time from independence re citizenship or independence re judicial power.
As for the Governor-General, I'm not aware of any restriction on dual citizenship there.
Thanks for the reply! Very interesting and comprehensive much like your videos 🙂
Professor, have you notified the LNP that nuclear power and it's waste are out of the question as per our Aust constituition.
No. First, it's not my job to notify parties of anything. Second, if you watch the video, there are constitutional heads of power which may support it, depending upon the legislation enacted.
Those opoesed to compulsary vaccination were not all anti vax I can state that as a fact
because I am one of those who had many vaccines in my life yet decided against the clot shot because something didn't feel right. I have not yet watched all of your video. I am only at 2:16 yet I am already suspecting a bias.
Good point - not all opposed to compulsory vaccination are anti-vaxxers, but I still think that this was the constituency that he was trying to attract.
Why not elect Assange to the Senate .. Obama pardoned Bradley Manning ?
You mean Chelsea
I have no opinion on Assange for or against him or his recent history. I would not vote for this party. I am however disappointed with the snide remark from the presenter inferring without evidence that Assange adopted the policy of anti vaxxing to appeal to anti vaxxers to get their vote. In an otherwise excellent presentation, this unsupported speculation tainted the presentation.
Im sorry but where is the ambiguity? He can run for the senate of house of reps if he so chooses.
We have enough stupidity in the parliament now
CC,
I had to Stop and Remember with this JA Video.
JA has Found Himself in a Web of Politics, Tinged with Some Legalities, Tinged with Our Relationship with Britain, Tinged with Relationship Matters, Tinged with Family Matters, Tinged with the Media, Tinged with Modern Internet Capabilities, Tinged with 9/11.
So JA Could Run for Australian Politics but this is Irrelevant to His Well Being and the Well Being of His Family.
So Like a Lot of Australians He Remains a Concern that We have No Answer for.
Perhaps he could return to Sweden to clear up those rape charges he ran away from .
I agree!
IIRC, they weren't charges. It was a summons for questioning. And the woman who made the allegations later dropped or failed to follow through on said allegations.
@@TheRonster1957 They were real charges. You don't have to "iirc" - look it up. There's a wikipedia page.
The prosecutor tried again in 2019 to extradite Assange back to Sweden to answer the charges.
The charges were NOT "dropped" - one expired because the big baby hid in the Ecuadorian Embassy, and the other was withdrawn because it had no prospect of proceeding BECAUSE THE BIG BABY WAS HIDING IN THE EMBASSY!
@@TheRonster1957 "Ardin still wishes he had faced trial for the alleged assault against her. “But he won’t. So I have to let it go.”
She says some of her doubters don’t take her seriously because they don’t think the details of her experience, or reaction, were dramatic enough.
She suggests there’s an expectation of sexual assault to always be brutal, involve a lot of violence, and leave the victim heavily traumatised - and if that doesn’t happen you can’t be a real victim, or a real offender.
But that doesn’t align with what Ardin describes as the reality of her experience. She stresses that doesn’t make it any less serious or unacceptable.
She slams many of Assange's supporters - and journalists - for seeking a “one-sided narrative” which turns him into a hero, and her into an evil CIA agent.
“I think that we have a problem that we have to have these heroes that are flawless… I don’t think heroes exist outside fairytales.”"
www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd1jgv3knnwo
Ok then, Section 44 comes into play, BUT this US law is broken and NOT Aussie law, The High Court is over to you for this Ice cream headache (sitting as Court of Disputed Returns (Australia). I'm getting an ice cream Headache over this.
The video discusses the issue about it being a foreign conviction, if you watch it.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I did, thanks, But you still have a Court of Disputed Returns (Australia) case if Julian Made it to parament, as Section 44 and I think the Ecuadorian Govt gave him a Passport when was in the London Ecuadorian embassy so that would need short out as well. political asylum, thing
🤐
With all due respect Proffessor we seem to have a lot of constitutional experts and you all have different views.
People are allowed to have different view, and of course some things are highly contestable. The High Court often divides 4:3 on the difficult issues, so it is impossible to predict. But on the other hand, some things are more clear cut than others, so the answer is reasonably clear.
I can only give my view, based on my understanding of how the High Court has previously interpreted the Constitution. It is a well informed view, but no one can know when the High Court will change tack. Hence, I'm not claiming infallibility!
@constitutionalclarion1901 Thankyou for your reply, Professor, I do enjoy your videos.
God Bless ❤️
When we finally have another Referendum.... I would be proud to vote for Julian Assange as first President of the Republic.