SUBSCRIBE: ua-cam.com/users/AussieLaw BECOME A MEMBER: ua-cam.com/channels/loahlV-M4A0LIc14rmfNnw.htmljoin 0:00 - Dual Citizenship 1:24 - Re Canavan [2017] 5:34 - Re Gallagher [2018]
'Subject or citizen of a foreign power' was probably intended to mean, in modern parlance, 'someone born outside the king/queen's realms and territories'. In 1901 there was no concept of citizenship as we know it today, be it British or Australian. I am surprised the citizenship crisis didn't happen earlier. In 1986, when the Australia Act was being passed in Westminster, the Commonwealth Government should have asked the UK parliament to amend the 1901 Constitution Act by replacing the clause with 'someone holding the citizenship of a country outside the Queen's realms and territories' This would have allowed those with might qualify for the citizenship of the UK or another Commonwealth realm to be protected from disqualification. This could still happened, there is nothing binding the UK parliament from amending section 1 of 1986 Australia Act if requested to do so by the Aus govt. It sounds far fetched asking the old imperial power to do this, but the Constitution is rightly or wrongly British legislation and any amendments would only be those requested by the Canberra parliament.
The outcome of the case concerning the application of Section 44(i) indicates that an individual who holds dual citizenship and has not taken reasonable steps to renounce their citizenship is ineligible to be nominated as a senator or Member of Parliament. However, what if the foreign law prevent the person from participating a representative government? For instance, what if the foreign nation has legislation akin to Section 44(i) that already bars the individual from participating in its government, or if the country operates under a dictatorship?
What does this say of our representatives? They appear not to comprehend the very document that establishes the parliament in which they sit. The document from which they derive their "limited grant of power" to make laws. The document that establishes what laws they may make. Many of these people are LAWYERS for goodness' sake! It is not that section 44 is difficult to understand - "Any person who: (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;" "shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives." I am but a humble motor mechanic, yet even I endeavour to understand The Constitution, indeed believe it is my duty, but one has to wonder. Have any of our politicians even read it? What of these members salaries? Were they not unlawfully paid? When are they going to repay this taxpayers money? Did they not become elected under false pretences? And what of the 100 pounds (adjusted for inflation since 1901) they owe me "for every day on which he so sits". Should I still ask for this? Contrast this to a person who is overpaid unemployment benefits (even when it's centrelinks fault). Now this brings me to another sorry saga in australian political history - the case of Dr Mohamed Haneef. Dr Haneef was arrested on 2 July 2007 in connection with a alleged bomb plot in London. His immigration visa was unlawfully cancelled and he was falsely charged with "providing support to a terrorist organisation" What is most disturbing is that he was held in secret and interrogated for twelve days without access to legal counsel and was unable to contact his family to let them them know he was being held. When this story broke there was considerable media attention and much debate with numerous high profile lawyers entering the fray. Many people condemmed the federal legislation for "removing" Dr Haneefs habeas corpus rights. Dr Haneefs rights were certainly violated but since such rights are inalienable it was impossible to "remove" them. Now as the whole sorry saga unfolded I aquainted myself with nearly all the relevant radio, TV, and print stories available. This coverage continued for a protracted period. With all the documentaries, articles, radio and tv interviews etc, I did not find a SINGLE INSTANCE of any mention of Section 75 (v), "in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against any officer of the Commonwealth;" "the High Court shall have original jurisdiction." Was Dr Haneef aware of this avenue of remedy? Probably not. Was he given the necessary facilities - type writer, High Court forms, use of a phone, legal advice, etc to pursue such an avenue? Probably not. Was he informed of the habeus corpus protections in Chapter 111? Probably not. Should he have been so informed? Most certainly. Were his captors the Prime Minister John Howard, Kevin Andrews the Immigration Minister, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, the Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer, the rest of the Cabinet or the Parliament even aware of the existence of Section 75 of The Constitution? Sadly it would seem, for Dr Haneef, indeed for all of us, probably not.
SUBSCRIBE: ua-cam.com/users/AussieLaw
BECOME A MEMBER: ua-cam.com/channels/loahlV-M4A0LIc14rmfNnw.htmljoin
0:00 - Dual Citizenship
1:24 - Re Canavan [2017]
5:34 - Re Gallagher [2018]
'Subject or citizen of a foreign power' was probably intended to mean, in modern parlance, 'someone born outside the king/queen's realms and territories'. In 1901 there was no concept of citizenship as we know it today, be it British or Australian.
I am surprised the citizenship crisis didn't happen earlier. In 1986, when the Australia Act was being passed in Westminster, the Commonwealth Government should have asked the UK parliament to amend the 1901 Constitution Act by replacing the clause with 'someone holding the citizenship of a country outside the Queen's realms and territories' This would have allowed those with might qualify for the citizenship of the UK or another Commonwealth realm to be protected from disqualification.
This could still happened, there is nothing binding the UK parliament from amending section 1 of 1986 Australia Act if requested to do so by the Aus govt.
It sounds far fetched asking the old imperial power to do this, but the Constitution is rightly or wrongly British legislation and any amendments would only be those requested by the Canberra parliament.
The outcome of the case concerning the application of Section 44(i) indicates that an individual who holds dual citizenship and has not taken reasonable steps to renounce their citizenship is ineligible to be nominated as a senator or Member of Parliament. However, what if the foreign law prevent the person from participating a representative government? For instance, what if the foreign nation has legislation akin to Section 44(i) that already bars the individual from participating in its government, or if the country operates under a dictatorship?
What does this say of our representatives? They appear not to comprehend the very document that establishes the parliament in which they sit. The document from which they derive their "limited grant of power" to make laws. The document that establishes what laws they may make. Many of these people are LAWYERS for goodness' sake!
It is not that section 44 is difficult to understand -
"Any person who:
(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;"
"shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives."
I am but a humble motor mechanic, yet even I endeavour to understand The Constitution, indeed believe it is my duty, but one has to wonder. Have any of our politicians even read it?
What of these members salaries? Were they not unlawfully paid? When are they going to repay this taxpayers money? Did they not become elected under false pretences?
And what of the 100 pounds (adjusted for inflation since 1901) they owe me "for every day on which he so sits". Should I still ask for this?
Contrast this to a person who is overpaid unemployment benefits (even when it's centrelinks fault).
Now this brings me to another sorry saga in australian political history - the case of Dr Mohamed Haneef. Dr Haneef was arrested on 2 July 2007 in connection with a alleged bomb plot in London. His immigration visa was unlawfully cancelled and he was falsely charged with "providing support to a terrorist organisation" What is most disturbing is that he was held in secret and interrogated for twelve days without access to legal counsel and was unable to contact his family to let them them know he was being held.
When this story broke there was considerable media attention and much debate with numerous high profile lawyers entering the fray. Many people condemmed the federal legislation for "removing" Dr Haneefs habeas corpus rights.
Dr Haneefs rights were certainly violated but since such rights are inalienable it was impossible to "remove" them.
Now as the whole sorry saga unfolded I aquainted myself with nearly all the relevant radio, TV, and print stories available. This coverage continued for a protracted period.
With all the documentaries, articles, radio and tv interviews etc, I did not find a SINGLE INSTANCE of any mention of Section 75 (v),
"in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against any officer of the Commonwealth;" "the High Court shall have original jurisdiction."
Was Dr Haneef aware of this avenue of remedy? Probably not. Was he given the necessary facilities - type writer, High Court forms, use of a phone, legal advice, etc to pursue such an avenue? Probably not. Was he informed of the habeus corpus protections in Chapter 111? Probably not. Should he have been so informed? Most certainly.
Were his captors the Prime Minister John Howard, Kevin Andrews the Immigration Minister, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, the Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer, the rest of the Cabinet or the Parliament even aware of the existence of Section 75 of The Constitution?
Sadly it would seem, for Dr Haneef, indeed for all of us, probably not.