ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Australia elections , Australia politics , Julie Bishop , Malcolm Turnbull , Tony Abbott

Reply
Old 29th October 2017, 07:41 PM   #961
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,648
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
All decisions made by Joyce since three months after the last election are now in doubt.
Why just the last 3 months? Some schmuck saying, "You're a Kiwi so you can't be an MP" doesn't automatically change his status. Either he was ineligible to be an MP from the moment of the high court ruling or he was ineligible ab initio.

Maybe this is an issue that needs to be clarified by the HC but considering that they have already ruled that Rod Culleton's conviction annulment could not be applied retrospectively, I doubt that every bill that was passed since Joyce first entered parliament is going to be ruled out of order.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2017, 11:01 PM   #962
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 23,103
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Why just the last 3 months? Some schmuck saying, "You're a Kiwi so you can't be an MP" doesn't automatically change his status. Either he was ineligible to be an MP from the moment of the high court ruling or he was ineligible ab initio.

Maybe this is an issue that needs to be clarified by the HC but considering that they have already ruled that Rod Culleton's conviction annulment could not be applied retrospectively, I doubt that every bill that was passed since Joyce first entered parliament is going to be ruled out of order.
I think the HC ruled only on if he was eligible to stand at the last election, not since day 1 of him being an MP. Anyone can be a front bencher, however they need to be elected to parliament within 3 months of being appointed. Hence the 3 months mentioned in my post.

Election date = 2 July 2016.
+ 3 months = 2 October 2016
Joyce has not been able to make any decisions as minister since 3 October 2016


Here is an extract from chapter 2 of the Australian constitution where the three months is mentioned.
Quote:
64. Ministers of State
The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.
Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.
Ministers to sit in Parliament
After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
Ref: https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...k5b3iHzNuURmuF
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 03:56 AM   #963
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 23,103
Here is more on the same topic from another source

Quote:
GEORGE ROBERTS: The common law doctrine protects decisions of office holders who were invalidly appointed but only while they and everyone else assumed they had been properly appointed.

PATRICK KEYZER: There is a real risk, I think, that that some of the decisions that Mr Joyce has my could be challenged but again those are the matters that will no doubt be hotly contested and so it we very interesting to see how things pan out

GEORGE ROBERTS: Professor Keyser says once Barnaby Joyce and Fiona Nash became aware that they may not have been validly elected under the constitution, any ministerial powers they used from that point on are vulnerable to be challenged.
Ref: http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs...lenged/9095634

We live in interesting times. I wonder what the date would be from which their decisions could be challenged.
a. Three months after the last election, as per my previous post
b. When the first Greens MP resigned
c. When his case was referred to the HC.
d. None of the above because no one actually challenges the decisions.

Then of course the result of the challenge is unknown. Ditto to any consequences that follow.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 04:11 AM   #964
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,834
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
Legal challenge to government decisions after High Court judgment sends Barnaby Joyce to a byelection

Though they would have to show the decision was made by him and not the GG or cabinet based on a recommendation by Joyce.
This should be trivially easy. Back in the 1980s I drafted many regulations which went via the department head to minister to Governor in Council for approval. Cabinet didn't play a part, and neither should it given the volume of legislation and related regulations signed off. I reckon I was the only one to fully read the stuff I drafted. But the buck always stops with the Minister. He or she may not have read the bill, but it stops with him or her.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 01:23 PM   #965
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 23,103
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
This should be trivially easy. Back in the 1980s I drafted many regulations which went via the department head to minister to Governor in Council for approval. Cabinet didn't play a part, and neither should it given the volume of legislation and related regulations signed off. I reckon I was the only one to fully read the stuff I drafted. But the buck always stops with the Minister. He or she may not have read the bill, but it stops with him or her.
But you said it was the GG that approved the regulations. So they would be valid. Yes I agree who approved them would be easy to approve. The big issue is what was approved by the minister and not the GG?
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 02:21 PM   #966
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,226
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Since Windsor said he wouldn't contest the by-election, Barnaby will be re-elected, legally this time, and nothing will change.
Both One Nation and the Shooters have also said that they won't contest the election, and they were the only other parties with a hope of beating him.

Nothing will change. They won't overturn his ministerial decisions, they won't make him pay back his money. Nothing will change.

This whole thing has been a waste of time except as a way to draw Section 44 to everybody's attention. Almost as big a waste of time as the marriage equality survey then.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 07:31 PM   #967
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,648
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Nothing will change.
In terms of voting numbers this is true. But the faces will change. While Barnaby Joyce can simply contest the by election, the 5 Senators are out (probably permanently).
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 07:48 PM   #968
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,594
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Why just the last 3 months? Some schmuck saying, "You're a Kiwi so you can't be an MP" doesn't automatically change his status. Either he was ineligible to be an MP from the moment of the high court ruling or he was ineligible ab initio.

Maybe this is an issue that needs to be clarified by the HC but considering that they have already ruled that Rod Culleton's conviction annulment could not be applied retrospectively, I doubt that every bill that was passed since Joyce first entered parliament is going to be ruled out of order.
Not to mention those passed 1901-17 when King O'Malley was in Parliament.
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 11:16 PM   #969
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,759
So it turns out the Senate President may also be a dual citizen. At this point I'm wondering if parliament should be suspended so an audit can be conducted to the citizenship status of our MPs and Senators.

I don't think the Liberals will be willing, but then they stand the most to lose since it seems that Labor have their act straight on this.
__________________
Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 11:43 PM   #970
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 23,103
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
So it turns out the Senate President may also be a dual citizen. At this point I'm wondering if parliament should be suspended so an audit can be conducted to the citizenship status of our MPs and Senators.

I don't think the Liberals will be willing, but then they stand the most to lose since it seems that Labor have their act straight on this.
Odd. Four upper house members and only one lower house member declared ineligible to be MPs. Now number five is under a question mark. Would have thought that there would be double the lower house members ineligible as they have double the numbers. Is this becuase
1. Two of them were One Nation?
2. Numbers too small to come to this conclusion?
3. Some lower house members are keeping very quiet on the issue in case it is revealed they are ineligible?
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2017, 12:17 AM   #971
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,648
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post

According to this website, the plot thickens:
Quote:
If Senator Parry is found to have dual citizenship, there is likely be a recount of the Tasmanian Senate ticket.

That recount would place fellow Liberal Richard Colbeck, who was demoted on the party's ticket, into Senator Parry's spot.

ABC election analyst Antony Green said because of the number of below-the-line preferences on the Tasmanian Senate ticket, that recount would technically see Nick McKim unelected and replaced by One Nation's Kate McCulloch.

"That will be ignored by the High Court because Nick McKim was elected last time and the petition that goes from the Senate to the High Court will be asking for a replacement for Stephen Parry," he said.

"But it does mean in knocking Stephen Parry out, there are two new senators who appear — Richard Colbeck and Kate McCulloch from One Nation.

"They can't declare Nick McKim unelected. His position is not under threat."
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2017, 01:00 AM   #972
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,759
Yeah, that arises because Tasmanians are more likely to vote below the line. It does suck to think that technically you'd be unelected because some other git didn't do their citizenship homework.
__________________
Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2017, 11:49 PM   #973
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,648
It's been confirmed. Senator Parry is a Pom:
Quote:
STEPHEN Parry has received confirmation from the UK government that he is a British citizen.

The senate president has released a statement confirming the news.

..........

It’s likely the senator will be replaced by a count back of the 2016 election votes, which would see former Tourism Minister Richard Colbeck take over the seat.

Earlier Julie Bishop was grilled over why it took Parry two and a half months to reveal he might be a dual citizen after seven other federal MPs were referred to the High Court.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/nati...df2a4ddef18048
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 01:03 AM   #974
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 33,744
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The high court ruling I linked to is lengthy but the key word is "reasonable". For example, a candidate doesn't have to go to every embassy in the world and ask, "Am I a citizen of your country?". Similarly, if you did everything you reasonably could under the laws of the other country to renounce your citizenship then (even if the other country said, "**** your renouncement") then you would be ok under section 44.

So, even if Kim Jong-un unilaterally "granted" Malcolm Turnbull citizenship of North Korea, as long as Turnbull said "**** that!" he wouldn't suddenly be ineligible to be PM.
For a real world example, Sam Dastyari is a citizen of Iran, but there's no legal problem with him sitting in parliament because he spent hundreds of hours and several thousand dollars making all efforts to renounce said citizenship. It's not his fault they just would let him, but he had to show he'd made a good faith effort.
__________________
i loves the little birdies they goes tweet tweet tweet hee hee i loves them they sings to each other tweet twet tweet hee hee i loves them they is so cute i love yje little birdies little birdies in the room when birfies sings ther is no gloom i lobes the little birdies they goess tweet tweet tweet hee hee hee i loves them they sings me to sleep sing me to slrrp now little birdies - The wisdom of Shemp.
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 01:05 AM   #975
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 33,744
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I'm not sure how many days parliament sits per year but I think it is less than 365.25.


What about his pension entitlements?
Good question. Anyone know?
__________________
i loves the little birdies they goes tweet tweet tweet hee hee i loves them they sings to each other tweet twet tweet hee hee i loves them they is so cute i love yje little birdies little birdies in the room when birfies sings ther is no gloom i lobes the little birdies they goess tweet tweet tweet hee hee hee i loves them they sings me to sleep sing me to slrrp now little birdies - The wisdom of Shemp.
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 01:07 AM   #976
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 33,744
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
I heard some where if worst comes to worst the speaker can vote to give them the majority

Could be utter pants though

Is Joyce an awesome MP?

You would think the haka very day before going into the house would have raised eye brows

Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk
Yes, in the case of a tie the speaker has the deciding vote. Joyce is a terrible mp but he'll have no trouble getting reelected as his constituents would vote in a toyota landcruiser as long as it was the National Party candidate.
__________________
i loves the little birdies they goes tweet tweet tweet hee hee i loves them they sings to each other tweet twet tweet hee hee i loves them they is so cute i love yje little birdies little birdies in the room when birfies sings ther is no gloom i lobes the little birdies they goess tweet tweet tweet hee hee hee i loves them they sings me to sleep sing me to slrrp now little birdies - The wisdom of Shemp.
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 01:09 AM   #977
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 23,103
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It's been confirmed. Senator Parry is a Pom:

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/nati...df2a4ddef18048
I wonder if he has made any decisions that may be challenged. Can anyone ask him to pay $200 a day?

This is rather bad, THREE government politicians who should not be in parliament. Are there any more who should not be in parliament?
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 01:16 AM   #978
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 33,744
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
The Libs don't have the numbers on the floor, but do with the Speaker's vote. This will make things extremely interesting. Most recent Speakers have tried to act independently, as they are required to by law, but Smith has thrown a record number of Labor members out of the House and not a single Lib as I recall. Bronwyn Bishop was as bad, if not worse. Burke, Jenkins, Hawker and even Sinclair have had the guts to make up their own minds. I'm not sure Smith will.
Your recollection is wrong. This article from the SMH has the figures in it up to May of this year:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...03-gvxwgi.html

He has as is tradition for both sides thrown out 10 opposition mps for every government mp, but how much of this is due to bias and how much due to the fact that oppositions tend to be a bit disruptive, especially during question time would be tricky to work out. Certainly he's much better than old bronny, and except for the leadership spill doesn't attend coalition partyroom meetings, which she did.
__________________
i loves the little birdies they goes tweet tweet tweet hee hee i loves them they sings to each other tweet twet tweet hee hee i loves them they is so cute i love yje little birdies little birdies in the room when birfies sings ther is no gloom i lobes the little birdies they goess tweet tweet tweet hee hee hee i loves them they sings me to sleep sing me to slrrp now little birdies - The wisdom of Shemp.
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 01:18 AM   #979
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 33,744
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
In terms of voting numbers this is true. But the faces will change. While Barnaby Joyce can simply contest the by election, the 5 Senators are out (probably permanently).
I doubt we've seen the last of Larissa Waters.
__________________
i loves the little birdies they goes tweet tweet tweet hee hee i loves them they sings to each other tweet twet tweet hee hee i loves them they is so cute i love yje little birdies little birdies in the room when birfies sings ther is no gloom i lobes the little birdies they goess tweet tweet tweet hee hee hee i loves them they sings me to sleep sing me to slrrp now little birdies - The wisdom of Shemp.
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 01:19 AM   #980
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 33,744
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It's been confirmed. Senator Parry is a Pom:

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/nati...df2a4ddef18048
Good grief, is anyone in this government actually an Australian?
__________________
i loves the little birdies they goes tweet tweet tweet hee hee i loves them they sings to each other tweet twet tweet hee hee i loves them they is so cute i love yje little birdies little birdies in the room when birfies sings ther is no gloom i lobes the little birdies they goess tweet tweet tweet hee hee hee i loves them they sings me to sleep sing me to slrrp now little birdies - The wisdom of Shemp.
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2017, 01:59 PM   #981
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,226
Originally Posted by Damien Evans View Post
Good grief, is anyone in this government actually an Australian?
Yeah, lots of them. In fact, all the ones who aren't still are, because they've got dual citizenship. Parry is a pom and an Australian.

/captainobvious
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2017, 06:31 PM   #982
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Moderator
 
novaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 482
[not as a moderator]

One thing that I notice keeps happening.

Many of the "I'm not a citizen of another country" statements that are made are carefully couched in terms that ignore the "or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power" part of Section 44 of the constitution.

Saying "I'm not a citizen" is not sufficient. Actually renouncing the potential citizenship is the important part. (Or making sufficient effort where citizenship cannot be renounced - as others here have pointed out).

I've been wondering why it seems to affect one party more than another (as in renouncement not being performed) a very uncharitable thought has occurred to me...

... Perhaps they are deliberately keeping their options open so that they have another country to flee to, once they've finished destroying the social fabric of this one?
__________________
We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.
novaphile is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 01:38 AM   #983
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 23,103
Originally Posted by novaphile View Post
<snip>

I've been wondering why it seems to affect one party more than another (as in renouncement not being performed) a very uncharitable thought has occurred to me...

... Perhaps they are deliberately keeping their options open so that they have another country to flee to, once they've finished destroying the social fabric of this one?
No, I think the Labor party has procedures in place to ensure their MPs do not breach the constitution in this way. I can see the other parties trying to implement these procedures now for new candidates.

Still want to know if there are other MPs have dual nationality.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2017, 06:05 AM   #984
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,759
Sounds like the Liberals aren't happy with the idea of an audit. Instead they want some voluntary thing.

I'm not surprised, because if someone in a marginal seat is found to be ineligible then that could mean the downfall of the government.
__________________
Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2017, 10:42 PM   #985
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,648
NBN delivers again - NOT!

Quote:
Telstra will offer 42,000 customers refunds or new internet plans after promoting speeds via the NBN that it was unable to deliver.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said this morning that Telstra had admitted that across a range of NBN internet plans, tens of thousands of customers had failed to get what they were paying for.
https://thewest.com.au/technology/nb...-ng-b88653318z
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2017, 12:03 AM   #986
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 33,744
Originally Posted by novaphile View Post
[not as a moderator]

One thing that I notice keeps happening.

Many of the "I'm not a citizen of another country" statements that are made are carefully couched in terms that ignore the "or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power" part of Section 44 of the constitution.

Saying "I'm not a citizen" is not sufficient. Actually renouncing the potential citizenship is the important part. (Or making sufficient effort where citizenship cannot be renounced - as others here have pointed out).

I've been wondering why it seems to affect one party more than another (as in renouncement not being performed) a very uncharitable thought has occurred to me...

... Perhaps they are deliberately keeping their options open so that they have another country to flee to, once they've finished destroying the social fabric of this one?
You don't need to post that outside forum management.
__________________
i loves the little birdies they goes tweet tweet tweet hee hee i loves them they sings to each other tweet twet tweet hee hee i loves them they is so cute i love yje little birdies little birdies in the room when birfies sings ther is no gloom i lobes the little birdies they goess tweet tweet tweet hee hee hee i loves them they sings me to sleep sing me to slrrp now little birdies - The wisdom of Shemp.
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 09:59 PM   #987
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,226
The new Greens Senator for Western Australia is Jordan Steele-John, replacing Scott Ludlam, who has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair.

Hopefully this means that there'll be slightly more focus on disability services in parliament from now on.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 10:00 PM   #988
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Moderator
 
novaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 482
Originally Posted by Damien Evans View Post
You don't need to post that outside forum management.
Noted.

Thanks Damien.
__________________
We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.
novaphile is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 10:14 PM   #989
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,457
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
Sounds like the Liberals aren't happy with the idea of an audit. Instead they want some voluntary thing.

I'm not surprised, because if someone in a marginal seat is found to be ineligible then that could mean the downfall of the government.

This is one of those times when reading this thread that I have to pause for a moment and remind myself that the phrase "the Liberals" means something entirely different in Australia than it does here in the U.S..

__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 03:49 AM   #990
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 23,103
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
This is one of those times when reading this thread that I have to pause for a moment and remind myself that the phrase "the Liberals" means something entirely different in Australia than it does here in the U.S..

The Liberals in Australia means something similar to what The Conservatives mean in the UK. Though once Mr Turnbull says it should mean something else. Pity his party does not agree with him.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 02:48 PM   #991
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Moderator
 
novaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 482
The media have announced that Mr Turnbull has now lost his majority.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-41953010

The last sitting week is really going to be interesting.

I note that they are still trying to turn attention aware from the "or entitled to" part.
__________________
We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.
novaphile is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 04:08 PM   #992
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,217
Yes
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 04:20 PM   #993
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,226
https://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/results/

79.5% of people participated in the voluntary survey.
61.6% voted yes.
38.4% voted no.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 06:18 PM   #994
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,834
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
https://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/results/

79.5% of people participated in the voluntary survey.
61.6% voted yes.
38.4% voted no.
The "No" mob are now demanding that the will of the minority needs to be considered. Just like it is after an election.......not. The voters who support unsuccessful parties got no consideration at all. And the same should happen with the "No" voters.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 07:05 PM   #995
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 33,744
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
https://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/results/

79.5% of people participated in the voluntary survey.
61.6% voted yes.
38.4% voted no.
Good result, pity about all the mental damage caused and the waste of $120,000,000 when a newspoll already told us the same thing many times. Good job Liberals!
__________________
i loves the little birdies they goes tweet tweet tweet hee hee i loves them they sings to each other tweet twet tweet hee hee i loves them they is so cute i love yje little birdies little birdies in the room when birfies sings ther is no gloom i lobes the little birdies they goess tweet tweet tweet hee hee hee i loves them they sings me to sleep sing me to slrrp now little birdies - The wisdom of Shemp.
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 08:25 PM   #996
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,648
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
https://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/results/

79.5% of people participated in the voluntary survey.
61.6% voted yes.
38.4% voted no.
"There is many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip". Although Malcolm Turnbull has said that he wants SSM legislation passed by Christmas (as if anybody cared what he had to say), Parliament may have to debate two SSM bills.

The current bill for discussion was created by Senator Dean Smith which includes opt-outs for religious ministers and celebrants. Most seem to believe that it strikes the right balance. But now Senator James Paterson has announced his intention to introduce his own bill. It would extend the opt-out rights to people other than celebrants (caterers, drivers etc). It would also protect the rights of people who spoke out against SSM and formalized the rights of parents to remove children from schools that mentioned SSM.

The Paterson bill is unlikely to be debated but it provides a rich source of possible amendments to the Smith bill which would see it bogged down in the committee stages.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-1...s-next/9134072
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay...c52584d520ad4c
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 08:33 PM   #997
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,834
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
"There is many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip". Although Malcolm Turnbull has said that he wants SSM legislation passed by Christmas (as if anybody cared what he had to say), Parliament may have to debate two SSM bills.

The current bill for discussion was created by Senator Dean Smith which includes opt-outs for religious ministers and celebrants. Most seem to believe that it strikes the right balance. But now Senator James Paterson has announced his intention to introduce his own bill. It would extend the opt-out rights to people other than celebrants (caterers, drivers etc). It would also protect the rights of people who spoke out against SSM and formalized the rights of parents to remove children from schools that mentioned SSM.

The Paterson bill is unlikely to be debated but it provides a rich source of possible amendments to the Smith bill which would see it bogged down in the committee stages.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-1...s-next/9134072
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay...c52584d520ad4c
I don't agree at all. The Patterson bill is dead in the water and will be promptly consigned to the rubbish bin. The Smith bill will breeze through. With such a resounding result, the vast majority of politicians will not want to be seen to be delaying the bill. My firm belief is that the Smith bill will pass both houses the week after next with no amendments.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 08:46 PM   #998
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,648
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I don't agree at all. The Patterson bill is dead in the water and will be promptly consigned to the rubbish bin. The Smith bill will breeze through. With such a resounding result, the vast majority of politicians will not want to be seen to be delaying the bill. My firm belief is that the Smith bill will pass both houses the week after next with no amendments.
Each proposed amendment has to be debated and voted on. Any belief that the bill will "breeze through" falls under the category of "wishful thinking".
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 08:48 PM   #999
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,834
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Each proposed amendment has to be debated and voted on. Any belief that the bill will "breeze through" falls under the category of "wishful thinking".
We will see. I stand by my prediction.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 09:20 PM   #1000
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 23,103
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
"There is many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip". Although Malcolm Turnbull has said that he wants SSM legislation passed by Christmas (as if anybody cared what he had to say), Parliament may have to debate two SSM bills.

The current bill for discussion was created by Senator Dean Smith which includes opt-outs for religious ministers and celebrants. Most seem to believe that it strikes the right balance. But now Senator James Paterson has announced his intention to introduce his own bill. It would extend the opt-out rights to people other than celebrants (caterers, drivers etc). It would also protect the rights of people who spoke out against SSM and formalized the rights of parents to remove children from schools that mentioned SSM.

The Paterson bill is unlikely to be debated but it provides a rich source of possible amendments to the Smith bill which would see it bogged down in the committee stages.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-1...s-next/9134072
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay...c52584d520ad4c
Looks like many politicians will want to have a say. This will ensure parliament spends many hours debating the issue. Yet few, if any, will change their positions during the debate. Then if the bill is delayed the Government might fall at any time if it loses any more lower house MPs.

Might as well publish their opinions on their own website and then have a vote.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.