Strewth Cobbah

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 am, August 16th, 2017 - 163 comments
Categories: australian politics, election 2017, International, jacinda ardern, labour, making shit up, Politics, spin, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

You would think that New Zealand Labour was in possession of nuclear tipped medium range missiles and had threatened to let off a few into the sea near Tasmania just to make sure they worked.

Such has been the overwhelming response from Australia’s right about Labour’s Chris Hipkins asking Peter Dunne two simple questions:

Are children born in Australia to parents who are New Zealand citizens automatically citizens of New Zealand; if not, what process do they need to follow in order to become New Zealand citizens?

Would a child born in Australia to a New Zealand father automatically have New Zealand citizenship?

And these were simple written questions to get bits of information, not significant oral questions where the opposition tries to embarass the Government.  There have been over 7,000 of them this year.

The answers to the questions would be it depends when. But under section 7 of the British Nationality and New Zealand Citizenship Act 1948 many would, at least if they were born before 1977.

The section provides for current purposes (from what I understand):

[A] person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a New Zealander by descent if his father was a New Zealand citizen at the time of his birth.”

Pretty clear.

The problem is the Australian constitution has this appallingly racist provision:

44. Any person who … is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights & privileges of a subject or 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.

So no Dual Citizenship.  Of any sort.  And despite our close relationship New Zealand is a foreign power.

And just to make it clear:

45. If a senator or member of the House of Representatives … [b]ecomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the last preceding section … his place shall thereupon become vacant.

Also pretty clear.

Mr Joyce’s problem is that although he was born in 1967 in Australia his father was born in New Zealand.  And if he took this simple web based test he could have saved himself a lot of anguish.

The problem has arisen because a couple of Green Senators, Larissa Waters and Scott Ludlum as well as a couple of others discovered they had dual citizenship. Scott was also a Kiwi. They both graciously resigned their positions. Politics needs more gracious people.

But tories are not noted for their graciousness. Normally any problems that arise are someone else’s fault.

And so we have the Australian Government make the extraordinary claim that somehow New Zealand Labour is responsible for the mess that Barnaby Joyce finds himself in.  Not a 1948 law, not a misunderstanding of the law, not the fact his father was a Kiwi, not his failure to check up, but the New Zealand Labour Party.

At least Julie Bishop thinks so.

From Stuff:

Bishop and colleagues seemed to be channelling the wilder elements of the era of Trump as they ripped in to Shorten and his colleagues for persuading a Labour MP across the ditch to ask a question that dropped Barnaby Joyce right in it.

The result of the manoeuvre was to get official confirmation from the New Zealand government that Joyce was indeed a New Zealand citizen.

The Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, railed that this amounted to Shorten entering an international conspiracy to try to bring down Australia’s government.

Bishop was not so constrained.

“New Zealand is facing an election,” Bishop said.

“Should there be a change of government, I would find it very hard to build trust with those involved in allegations designed to undermine the government of Australia.”

And there was this unbelievable comment reported in Newshub from Bishop:

The New Zealand Labour leader Jacinda Ardern has revealed Bill Shorten sought to use the New Zealand Parliament to undermine the Australian government,” Ms Bishop told reporters in Canberra on Tuesday.

“This puts at risk the relationship between the Australian Government and the New Zealand Government.”

What utter tosh.  Nothing of the sort happened.  The questions will not affect Joyce’s status.  The Liberals are flailing around trying to divert attention and blame for something they have to wear.

Their basic problem is that the media was already onto the issue well before Hipkins asked his questions.  From Adam Gartrell at the Age:

Last Monday [August 7] I got a phone call from a normally reliable source. With the section 44 wrecking ball still swinging through Parliament, the source suggested I might want to take a closer look at Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce’s citizenship.

My first reaction was to laugh. Joyce had been in Parliament since 2004, serving in both chambers. He’d risen to the second most powerful office in the land. Surely he’d done his due diligence? Plus, Joyce was a guy who prided himself in being authentically Aussie. The thought he might secretly be a Kiwi was almost too outlandish to contemplate.

Almost.

The fear of getting scooped is a powerful motivator in journalism. So I quickly started digging, establishing that Joyce’s father – James Joyce – had been born in the South Island city of Dunedin in 1924. He was born a British subject but New Zealand citizenship laws made him a New Zealand citizen. The same laws – the British Nationality and New Zealand Citizenship Act 1948 – said: “A person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a New Zealand citizen by descent if his father was a New Zealand citizen.”

That seemed pretty black and white: there was no requirement to activate the citizenship, it was automatic.

So at 12.31pm on Monday, August 7, I sent Joyce’s media adviser, Jake Smith, an email entitled: “Is the boss a Kiwi?”

As the article shows everything unravelled from there.  Hipkins had nothing to do with it.  His questions were lodged two days later on August 9 and have still not been formally answered as I type this.  And Ministerial confirmation did not create the problem.  Anyone with a law degree would have concluded that there was an issue that Barnaby needed to address.  There was a scent of blood hanging around Barnaby and the media was onto it.

Jacinda’s response to Bishop’s idiocy was perfectly weighted with equal amounts of logic and steel:

It is highly regrettable that the Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has chosen to make false claims about the New Zealand Labour Party,” she says.

“I have been utterly transparent about this situation. I stand by my statements this morning that I knew absolutely nothing about the Barnaby Joyce case until it broke in the media yesterday afternoon.

“I also note that Internal Affairs Minister Peter Dunne has confirmed that the Australian media inquiries were the instigator of this issue and that he has described connections of the New Zealand Labour Party to this issue as ‘utter nonsense.'”

“I have also contacted the Australian High Commission to register my disappointment and will be meeting with the High Commissioner later today.”

You do not have to be a media genius to conclude that the tip off to Gartrell may have come from within the ranks of Australia Labor.  But to think that New Zealand Labour and Hipkins were responsible for what happened requires multiple levels of stupidity.

I guess the right in Australia and in New Zealand are fearful of losing power and are lashing out in an attempt to damage their opponents.  But it is clear to me that on both sides of the Tasman the clock is ticking for the right.

163 comments on “Strewth Cobbah”

  1. Cinny 1

    The laws in Australia are nothing to do with NZ, so don’t blame NZ Labour for your problems. Julie Bishop should do something to change the law in her country if she has a problem with it. It’s not our fault the aussie government only has a one seat majority and their daft laws have put that in jepody.

    • popexplosion 1.1

      It’s worse. The Ozzies failed basic due diligence, the fact no Labour Aussie were caught suggests the ruling party is a lazy bunch of bankers.

      • popexplosion 1.1.1

        no worse. spies sign secreacy docs, are they also worried, nope because they do their due diligence, it’s the job. so a minister failed to walk when caught. what was they expecting, one mp and they are gone, now their gone. breaking the constitution bad, but its worse that someone asked questions in nz about nz laws. really!?#$/#

        Now for kiwi creeps and old cretins. Peters says it’s okay for a minister to break the law by not doing due diligence and asking a few questions?!/$#.

        Dunne says n.Korea has made us all citizens, like we can’t provide a oath to revise it before the next time we get elected.

        bishop rancid attack to deflect from incompetence of her own parties processes…

        • Cinny 1.1.1.1

          With the aussie government falling apart, on going infighting and a one seat majority, maybe Julie Bishop thought.. what would our hero john key do… the answer…blame nz labour to distract the public.

          Am finding it super funny, the desperation of the right wing aussie government is hilarious.

    • Ross 1.2

      Here is Barnaby Joyce being interviewed a few weeks ago. He thought it was ridiculous that he could be a NZ citizen. The interviewer did ask him if it might be a good idea to check but he wasn’t interested in doing that.

  2. ScottGN 2

    I reckon there will cables flying from Wellington to Canberra
    “Please Julie! Just shut the fuck up!”

  3. Graeme 3

    How the hell did this section of their constitution work in 1901? Or for that matter with anyone of Irish, Italian or Greek decent as those nations appear to have indefinite right of decent in some circumstances (if the wikipedia page, and my interpretation, is up to snuf) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis

    • dukeofurl 3.1

      In 1901 being British descent wasnt considered being an agent of a foreign power,.

      If you do have the right to another citizenship you have to formally decline it, its quite simple to do so, as Barnaby has now done so.

      But that wont protect him from having to resign as the rule apply s from the moment he nominates himself for election. On these sort of things the courts have ruled previously a person was invalidly elected so a new election must be held.

      • popexplosion 3.1.1

        but the party of govt has a one seat majority, all legislation was illegally passed.

  4. red-blooded 4

    Susie Ferguson did a good job this morning interviewing the Aussie journalist who was asking this question well before anything asked by Hipkins. Her final question raised exactly the right point – given that we’re 6 weeks from an election, just who is trying to meddle in whose internal politics?

    Winston Peters trying to coattail on this issue, though. Egg!

    • ScottGN 4.1

      That was a weirdly disjointed interview with Winston.
      I noticed that Ardern cleverly turned down Morning Report this morning, a sure sign that the dynamics of this election have been overturned in a short couple of weeks.

    • popexplosion 4.2

      bishop isn’t imploding, just like boag imploded over cabbages and water, it’s what she said early that should shock, about national voters when voting.

  5. Carolyn_nth 5

    Such a beat up in Oz about something that really isn’t the most pressing issue the country or the globe faces.

    I am staggered to see that in this day and age, Aussie, and maybe NZ too, still have such nonsense patriarchal citizenship laws – rights to citizenship via father and not mother? And this Aussie law (and the NZ citizenship one) seems to go back to the days of the British Empire.

    Sometimes the law is truly an ass!

    • miravox 5.1

      New Zealand’s moved on with it’s citizenship laws …

      The ‘by descent’ law changed from father to either parent in the 1978, according to wiki, and at that stage it also had to be claimed.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_nationality_law

      But clearly Australia needs to look at its constitution around this.

      • dukeofurl 5.1.1

        Its very restrictive about employment at the time of nomination as well.
        Not so long ago and independent was disqualified after his election because at time of his nomination he was a teacher employed by the state of Victoria ( on leave).
        The rules exclude ‘anyone with an office of profit of the Commonwealth’
        It was thought being a state employee not Commonwealth was in the clear, but the High Court didnt think so.
        To get around that provision, candidates have to resign their jobs before the election.

        having said that the chances of the Australian constitution being changed for these issues isnt great

  6. Keith 6

    What is in essence a very bigoted piece legislation that 1940’s South Africa would be proud of, designed to ensure only pure bred Australians can represent their great land, is now biting the bigots in the arse!

    It’s so ironic that a country that disenfranchised long term New Zealander residents in Aussie to reinforce their positions as second class citizens is now ironically getting rid of the very law makers who support it.

    I’m glad Jacinda used plain terms to reject Bishops lies. Never see that from their NZ Nat toads!

    • dukeofurl 6.1

      Its not bigoted. its just rules out dual citizenship. Whether you are english or Indian doesnt matter.

      Plenty of people who have had dual citizenship have just renounced it formally and thats that. Labours selection rules requires candidates to look through parents and grandparents for any possibility of another nationality and if so just make a formal declining of it and keep some record.

  7. Incognito 7

    It seems to me that, generally speaking, the left tends to implode and self-destruct while the right tends to go down & out in blazing glory in a nuclear manner trying to annihilate everyone & everything around them. Sums it up nicely for me 😉

  8. Sanctuary 8

    Now is the time for Rocket Labs to test fire four rockets into the Tasman sea off Queensland, so the sparks of our rockets may set fire to the hearts of the oppressed masses and act as detonators giving full play to the mental power of our mighty science!!

  9. Wayne 9

    If you seriously think that the pathetic set of excuses set out in your article gets Chris Hipkins off the hook, you are delusional.
    No New Zealand MP should be asking such questions, especially when they are suggested to be asked by a foreign political party.
    Hopkins would know the citizenship issue is very sensensitive in the Australian parliament. Already this year Green senators have had to resign on this issue and Hipkins would know that. It should have been obvious to Hipkins that such questions were being suggested with only one purpose in mind. He knows that the Aussie government has a one seat majority. He may not have known it was about Joyce, but he hardly needs much insight to know it would be about the Liberals.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1

      I think destroying racists transcends borders, pearl-clutcher. Obviously I can see how that might pose problems for the National Party.

      • Tuppence Shrewsbury 9.1.1

        Here you are defending dirty politics as some sort of moral crusade. Onya

        • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1.1

          Dirty politics? Nonsense. The racist is in breach of his own country’s racist laws. Typical right winger to say it’s someone else’s fault.

          Did Hipkins run to Cameron Slater the way John Key would? No. Did he write Australia’s constitution? No.

          Nice try, weasel.

          • Wayne 9.1.1.1.1

            Pathetic excuse for disgraceful/stupid behaviour by Hipkins. I also note Jacinda has enough sense to know it was wrong.

            • Steve Wrathall 9.1.1.1.1.1

              But it shows she’s not in control of her front bench. Whether she was in on it or not, the post-it note of “leader” on her forehead seems as loose as the previous four.

            • Ross 9.1.1.1.1.2

              Wayne

              Did you ever pull your mate John Key aside and admonish him for asking questions in the House about Tranz Rail, all the while owning thousands of Tranz Rail shares? I am sure you did because you seem like an honourable bloke.

            • NewsFlash 9.1.1.1.1.3

              But Wayne, did you listen to Hipkins reasons, I bet you didn’t, doesn’t fit your narrative does it, there is no difference between you and Bishop, both out and out liars.

            • Stuart Munro 9.1.1.1.1.4

              The only pathetic behavior here is Bishop’s Wayne – and of course yours.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1.1.1.5

              What’s your excuse for going into bat for Australia’s white supremacist government? They are bad neighbours and richly deserve the fruits of their bigotry.

          • tuppence shrewsbury 9.1.1.1.2

            Sorry, A briefed parliamentarian asking questions in the house on a matter being investigated by compliant media which is then reported on? that’s the basic framework for performing dirty politics dumb dumb. doesn’t matter who does it.

            I don’t honestly have a problem with it, it’s just it shows the hypocrisy of decrying dirty politics when all parties get involved in it. What I don’t understand is why chippy would be stupid enough to do it when there is no upside for NZ labour?

            • alwyn 9.1.1.1.2.1

              “no upside for NZ labour”.

              There are possible I imagine, aren’t there?
              Perhaps they could offer to arrange a bit of fundraising for the New Zealand Labour Party?
              It would probably be possible to have one of the Oz unions transfer a bit of dosh to a New Zealand union and then pass it on to NZ Labour.
              Would that be legal?

              Raiding the Parliamentary purse as happened in 2005 is probably a great deal harder than it was then.
              NZ Labour certainly seem to need the money. The amount of advertising, or billboards for that matter seems very thin on the ground.

              • KJT

                Like US money to National through the NZ brethren, you mean.

                • tuppence shrewsbury

                  Exactly. Just as shady and unwanted

                • alwyn

                  I thought the Brethren were planning to run their own campaign, and not that they gave any money to National.
                  Doesn’t actually matter of course. In spite of their religious background the were suitably demonised by the Labour Government.

                  • KJT

                    No difference under the law, Alwyn.

                    The law you lot were so keen on not having breakers of same in parliament, Lately.

                    • alwyn

                      I haven’t any idea as to what your second sentence means.
                      The only person I have wished to be out of Parliament, at least recently, was a certain unrepentant fraudster who looks as if she may cease to darken the doors of the Chamber next month.
                      I don’t see what her misdeeds have to do with campaign finance.

                    • KJT

                      So. Electoral fraud is fine, so long as it is NACT, doing it.

            • Psycho Milt 9.1.1.1.2.2

              …a matter being investigated by compliant media…

              I would have thought media investigations that make the government very angry show anything but “compliance.”

    • dukeofurl 9.2

      And Joyces responsibility to check his fathers nationality ?

    • WC1 9.3

      One law for the opposition another for the deputy prime minister? A smoke screen is being used to cover an inept and unpopular Aussie government.

    • Ad 9.4

      Agreed. Hipkins should be toast and denied a Cabinet position.

      Still, another 48 hours of media devoted to Jacinda Ardern.
      Bill just can’t seem to get a break!

      • One Anonymous Bloke 9.4.1

        Oh bullshit. Get off your knees. They’re running concentration camps and you want to genuflect? Pfft!

        • Ad 9.4.1.1

          Jacinta did fine. She’ll get Mozzie votes out of it.

          But she has signalled trouble for Hopkins.

    • Adrian 9.5

      Yeah, but it worked didn’t it Wayne.
      Fuck’em. Arrogant racist bastards.

    • If you seriously think that the pathetic set of excuses set out in your article gets Chris Hipkins off the hook, you are delusional.

      Off what hook? There’s no penalty for asking a question in Parliament. He gets a telling-off from Ardern and that’s it, which is presumably why he was willing to do it. Well, that and the fact that the current Aus government is a racist one that runs concentration camps (thanks OAB, very succinct) and is actively hostile to NZ, and it’s very much in our interests that it be replaced with a better one.

    • Delia 9.7

      Yes and lets see if Barnaby resigns, because no amount of calling out your neighbours changes that he has been in the Aus govt since 2004 with dual citizenship….so I guess Julie can just sing now.

    • Anne 9.8

      Correct Wayne. Hipkins’ stupid and thoughtless action in submitting those written questions is going to haunt him for some time to come.

      But if you can summon the courage to listen to Jacinda’s thoroughly professional responses at this stand up media session, you will be able to appreciate that his leader, Jacinda Ardern left no doubt that she was equally unimpressed with his conduct.

      https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/95793008/labour-accused-of-interfering-in-australian-politics

      In due course, I expect Hipkins is going to have to pay a price of some sort for his stupidity.

      But the real crime here is that the Australian government has attempted to falsely implicate the NZ Labour Party in what is an internal matter for the Australian government. What is more, they did so knowing New Zealand is only weeks away from a General Election and that their misrepresentations of the actual facts could have an effect on the outcome of that election.

      Now that really is blatant interference in the politics of a foreign power.

      • mickysavage 9.8.1

        Agreed Anne.

        This is a beat up by the Liberals and Barnaby’s problems have nothing to do with Hipkins. Although his actions were stupid.

        I agree with Ad this helps Jacinda. Makes her appear stronger and sucks media oxygen from English.

      • KJT 9.8.2

        Always thought Hipkins was the sort of careerist that would be equally comfortable in National.

        However no NZ MP ever lost votes by embarrassing the Aussies.

    • KJT 9.9

      Run away when you ask him for facts, Wayne, is back.

      Or, is it never let the facts get in the way of a good story, Wayne.

      I am not a Hipkins fan, but since when have the Aussie Government done NZ any favours?

    • North 9.10

      Stop your weeping and whining, personal responsibility advocate Wayne. Barnaby Rubble Joyce fucked up. Simple as that. His own fault. You and yours might be listened to, tissues might be passed around, if you and yours would pull the fake scandal around the non-existent $100K bottle of Donghua Liu wine out of your collective arse. Who do you think you are, pompous right wing trougher you ?

    • KJT 9.11

      When are we going to hear about Thiels funding of the National party?

      Rather close to being an agent of a foreign power.

      • Wayne 9.11.1

        KJT
        If Theil has, it will have been disclosed in the electoral returns. As far as I am aware he hasn’t.
        Theil’s interest in NZ is not about a particular political party, it is about his broader view of New Zealand. In fact his interest in NZ started when Labour was last in power.
        He has a particular view about the NZ innovation system. He thinks our style as a people fosters innovation. That is not something specific to any one political party.

        • KJT 9.11.1.1

          Wayne. You know as well as I do, that funding for National, is not just the amounts shown in electoral returns.

          I don’t think it is our “socialist” education system, that attracts people like Theil?

          The connections of the National party who made money, when Theil, “did the NZ Government like a dinner” for millions, would make interesting reading.

    • mpledger 9.12

      Of course Chris Hipkins should have asked those questions if people asked him to find out the answers especially if they were New Zealand citizens.

      It’s just plain stupid to think that he should hide facts from people who asks questions about ****NZ***** (especially NZ law) because it might hurt another country.

      (We’d never know which foreign countries were doing dodgy stuff relating to NZ if MPs weren’t allowed to embarrass them.)

      In fact under the OIA (IIRC all questions asked are OIA questions whether explicity expressed or not) he is obliged to answer the question.

      • Wayne 9.12.1

        Mpledger,
        I have never heard of an MP asking questions at the behest of a foreign political party.
        It should instantly scream alarm bells no matter whether they are a fraternal party or not.
        Jacinda Adern had no difficulty working that out.
        The continuing defence of Hipkins in the various comments demonstrates that hyperpartisanships trumps all. But hyperpartisanship is part of the problem of modern politics. It leads a complete inability to step back and see whether something is right/sensible or not. And it is leads to the ends justifying the means.

        • Psych nurse 9.12.1.1

          But apparently the written questions have not even been answered yet, so who told the Aussies they had been asked ?.

        • dukeofurl 9.12.1.2

          Hyper partisan ? Who would have guessed that NZ labour could do that too.

          Joyce can cry a river of tears when his case is heard by the HIgh Court. The evidence is that before the question came up in NZ he was being asked about and refused to accept the possibility- laughed it off.
          He can now pay the political price

          • dukeofurl 9.12.1.2.1

            “7136 (2017). Chris Hipkins to the Minister of Internal Affairs (09 Aug 2017): Would a child born in Australia to a New Zealand father automatically have New Zealand citizenship?

            Hon Peter Dunne (Minister of Internal Affairs) replied: Reply due: 17 Aug 2017

            They havent even answered yet ( its due tomorrow 17th) but we already know the answer

            Cant have ‘bought down the government’ when we all knew the answer before the reply came’

        • lloyd 9.12.1.3

          let’s solve this issue of political bias. In the interest of trans-Tasman mateship, lets pass a law that whoever gets elected to the Australian federal parliament immediately, automatically and irrevocably becomes a New Zealand citizen. Simple, easy and will solve that bias. Having a full parliament of New Zealand passport holders in Canberra should reduce the anti-kiwi bis in laws they pass over there.

        • Pat 9.12.1.4

          oh dear Wayne….hope your getting OT rates for this line…Id be more concerned about the unnaturally close relationship between Turnbull and the NZ National Party……

    • Gabby 9.13

      What hook?
      I want his supplementary question to be ‘Why is Ms Bishop such a big sook and where are her big girl pants?’

    • Patricia 9.14

      Was the information requested top secret ? I checked on Wikipedia and it all seemed to be set out there quite clearly. I think Wayne is shooting the messenger ; if Hipkins hadn’t answered then somebody else could have done so easily.

  10. ankerawshark 10

    Wayne, Yes and Jacinda Ardern has handled tihs brilliantly. She clearly stated Chris H’s actions were unacceptable. BUT even better she called Julie Bishop out on trying to put the blame on Joyce’s predicament on the NZ Labour Party………………..That was just silly.

    It clearly came from the Australian media……………….if Oz Labour were feeding the story to the media, well of course. That is what an opposition would do.

    IMHO the Australian law is downright racist and I think it is likely Jacinda just score a few thousand extra votes from ex-pat Kiwis who want a Govt that will stand up to Oz and call them out.

    • Bearded Git 10.1

      the australian journalist who broke this story called Bishop’s remarks bonkers on Morning Report this morning

  11. Sanctuary 11

    “…The problem is the Australian constitution has this appallingly racist provision:
    44. Any person who … is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights & privileges of a subject or 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…”

    At the time of the writing of the Australian constitution everyone (well, every white person) in the UK, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and NZ was still firstly and foremostly a “British subject” – a citizen of that singular and indivisible entity, the mighty British Empire. The provision was designed to keep out “foreign citizens” like dastardly Huns, garlic infused Frenchmen, troublesome Americans and nefarious Russians. If the current Australian interpretation of that clause wasn’t so ludicrously narrow, anyone with foreign citizenship derived from parents or grandparents born in the British Empire prior to the passing of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (that is, born prior to September 3rd 1939 as the law was backdated) would be fine.

    • dukeofurl 11.1

      No it didnt keep out anybody who wasnt British. They just couldnt be both Australian/British and a foreign national at the same time.

      There is a current minister who was born in and bought up in Belgium. He obviously needed Australian citizenship to be elected AND to renounce his citizenship of his country of birth.
      Simple to do.

    • Gabby 11.2

      It’s not racist, it’s xenophobic.

      • dukeofurl 11.2.1

        Strangely the constitution doesnt say that to be an MP or Senator Australian citizenship is required- their Electoral Act does.

        Strictly speaking the xenophobic aspects to being ‘eligible for foreign citizenship’ are because of the courts interpretations over the years

  12. Delia 12

    Australian Liberal party is like a demented rat backed in a corner, avoid at all costs.

    • tc 12.1

      With a single seat majority in the lower house and no majority in senate.

      Turdbull screwed the pooch with his snap election, they need all the distractions they can get as they can’t govern for the backers like wupert and the infighting is toxic.

  13. Adrian 13

    The pressure really is mounting. Winnie sounded lost and lonely this morning and struggling to be coherent. And why for Gods sake was he seemingly backing Aussies over NZers.
    Halfway through the interview he sounded like he just realised he had backed the wrong horse.
    Get up earlier you silly old bugger, you’re starting to sound like me.

    • WC1 13.1

      When did Winstone sound coherent?

    • ianmac 13.2

      Winston has backed away from his yesterday tirade against Hipkins. So today he had to be seen to be a bit more neutral. And not done very fluently either.

    • Bearded Git 13.3

      agreed adrian….winnie is starting to lose it a bit ….espiner was pissed off brcause he didnt stick to the labour’s underarm bowling script and went off on tangents

  14. esoteric pineapples 14

    I suspect the two conservative parties in Australia and New Zealand have close political and personal ties and this was seen as an opportunity for the Australian government to give National a helping hand. It is quite clearly an attempt to undermine Labour’s chances of winning the election.

    “When Bishop flew over to Auckland this week for one of her regular meetings with Kiwi counterpart Murray McCully, Prime Minister John Key’s door was also open.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/85657144/Australia-has-no-greater-friend-what-Julie-Bishop-really-thinks-of-New-Zealand

    • dukeofurl 14.1

      I dont think they were thinking that far out. They are in a blind panic as there is now no doubt a by election will have to be held.

  15. greywarshark 15

    Julie Bishop – Crocodile Julee.
    (Oz call crocodiles Snapping Handbags – seems to suit this female – is she a woman?)

  16. Stupidity and Australian politicians seem to go hand in hand.

    Bishop is an old nag and needs to be put out to pasture.

    • popexplosion 16.1

      Bishop, was she Abbott’s deputy? is she positioning herself? As the two main parties take turns imploding. Damn Ozzie greens for falling in their sword, starting this mess off.

  17. Nick 17

    Jacinda came across well in her actions and media responses. More votes coming to Labour Yeehah.

  18. ankerawshark 18

    I wonder if that means if Joyce can revoke his NZ citizenship with relative ease if this could be the case for all those poor b…..d’s in detention centres and re-participated back to NZ could too? I mean some of them must have Australian citizenship even if its just a small percentage?

    • alwyn 18.1

      An Australian citizen cannot be deported from Australia.
      In order to deport you they would have to first revoke your citizenship, which is possible but rare.
      Basically it requires that you did not disclose all relevant information when you applied for the Citizenship.
      An easy to read explanation is given here. Sorry about the ads you will see.
      https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110301233147AAv1P7E

      If the people held in a detention centre only hold New Zealand citizenship I don’t believe they could renounce it. You can’t, I think, renounce your NZ citizenship if it would leave you stateless.

      • ankerawshark 18.1.1

        Actually thanks for clarifying that. Unfortunately that makes sense

        • NewsFlash 18.1.1.1

          Barnaby has already renounced his NZ citizenship and has received confirmation, just doesn’t help him with regard to the Law, he’ll have to go through a by-election.

  19. mac1 19

    I am confused now as to the definition of racism. I would have thought that denying membership of a parliament to a person who has citizenship in a foreign country calls in questions of nationalism, patriotism or xenophobia.

    In another situation, the defining of Winston Peters’ call to ban the wearing of ceremonial daggers by Sikh men is seen as racist. I would have thought it was cultural or religious question, but not one of race.

    I am not calling into question whether either call is reasonable, but whether the issue has been named correctly. Racism may well be in the mix, depending on the motivation of the people involved, but that is another, and further, call.

    • greywarshark 19.1

      I thought that business of wearing ceremonial daggers always, that’s what I thought the Sikh spokesman said, is an interesting one.

      I don’t believe that all cultural ideas of foreigners should be accepted. Some just don’t work with the culture we have built up. We can’t have anyone having the right to carry daggers around all the time. At their own cultural assemblies only.
      NZ is too violent to have some men allowed to carry knives as it will spread and there would be resentment against all Indians about it.

      Included in my no-nos –
      Is cover-all burkhas.
      Genital mutilation.

      • KJT 19.1.1

        When i was at primary school all of us boys carried pocket knives. I still do.

        Don’t recall anyone getting stabbed.

        Mind you, using knives, in a fight, was considered something only cowards, did.

    • popexplosion 19.2

      Given the daggers are blunt, smallish, hidden and hard to get at, seems racist to me as it’s not about the threat, or thefree expression, but entirely about the other and saying no without having to regard as arrogance rules.

      • greywarshark 19.2.1

        pop
        You are not capable of viewing the outcomes in an intelligent fashion apparently. No use discussing possible problems with someone who applies some generic precept such as people should never have no said to them if they can claim some emotional special privilege.

      • mac1 19.2.2

        I agree that it is unreasonable to ban these ceremonial daggers worn by male members of the Sikh religion but is it racist? Or is it bigotry based on religion, or culture or as you say dislike of “the other”.

        The ‘other’ can be viewed as such by other reasons than race- the poor, beneficiaries, different religion, age, sex, politics, ethnicity, region, rurality, background, education, hair colour.

        I am still unclear as the wise use of the term ‘racism’ applied here. Not, I add, through wilfulness.

        • Gabby 19.2.2.1

          If you’re parading symbols of your otherness you’re kind of othering yourself.

      • Given the daggers are blunt, smallish, hidden and hard to get at, seems racist to me as it’s not about the threat

        Just because they’re small and blunt doesn’t mean that they can’t kill so, yeah, it’s about the threat.

        • McFlock 19.2.3.1

          no, it’s about the purpose and the intention.

          It’s the difference between nail scissors and a concealed blade. An umbrella and a sword.

          A weapon needs to be practical, hence the ban on switch blades. You can carry a swiss army knife, or even a machete, if you have a non-weapony excuse. Hell, look at the Scots bandmembers wearing sgian-dubh. Exactly the same situation – used for ceremony, it’s not a weapon.

          • Draco T Bastard 19.2.3.1.1

            I have no problem using them in ceremony.

            I have a problem carrying them around permanently:

            The kirpan … is a sword or knife carried by Sikhs.[1] It is a religious commandment given by Guru Gobind Singh in 1699, that Sikhs must wear five articles of faith at all times, the kirpan being one of five articles.[2][3]

            The Punjabi word kirpan has two roots: kirpa, meaning “mercy”, “grace”, “compassion” or “kindness”; and aanaa, meaning “honor”, “grace” or “dignity”.

            Sikhs are expected to embody the qualities of a Sant Sipahi or “saint-soldier” with the courage to defend the rights of all who are wrongfully oppressed or persecuted irrespective of their color, caste, or creed.[citation needed]

            Kirpans are curved and have a single cutting edge that may be either blunt or sharp.[1] They are often between 3.0 inches (7.6 cm) and 9.0 inches (23 cm) long,[1] and must be made of steel or iron

            • McFlock 19.2.3.1.1.1

              so it’s an article of faith, not a weapon.

              A turban is not a garrotte, either.

              Someone looking pissed off, running down the street with a six inch sharp knife in their hand, yelling “I’m gonna kill the bastards” would reasonably be regarded as carrying a weapon.

              A different person, with the same knife, blunt, sheathed, inaccessible, wearing a Sikh turban – they’re wearing the Sikh equivalent of a cross on a necklace.

              It’s really no different to carrying a hammer all the time. Fine if you’re a carpenter, takes some splaining if it’s 3am, and there’s a proken window and a security alarm going off. Then it’s a burglary implement, and illegal. Or if there’s a guy on the ground with blunt trauma injuries: then the hammer is a weapon possessed without reasonable excuse. How the injuries or wndow damage were caused takes investigation, but possession is possibly the immediate reason for arrest.

              Crimes act 1961:

              202A Possession of offensive weapons or disabling substances

              (1) In subsection (4)(a) offensive weapon means any article made or altered for use for causing bodily injury, or intended by the person having it with him or her for such use.

              (2) In subsection (4)(b) offensive weapon means any article capable of being used for causing bodily injury.

              (3) In this section disabling substance means any anaesthetising or other substance produced for use for disabling persons, or intended by any person having it with him or her for such use.

              (4)

              Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years—
              (a) who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, has with him or her in any public place any knife or offensive weapon or disabling substance; or

              (b)who has in his or her possession in any place any offensive weapon or disabling substance in circumstances that prima facie show an intention to use it to commit an offence involving bodily injury or the threat or fear of violence.

              • so it’s an article of faith, not a weapon.

                No, it’s actually a weapon dressed up as an item of faith. It says, quite specifically, that it’s to be used as one as part of their faith.

                Which means that it meets most of those clauses you listed there to be considered a weapon. It’s made to be one and it’s carried to be one.

                • McFlock

                  “Sikhs are expected to embody the qualities of a Sant Sipahi or “saint-soldier” with the courage to defend the rights of all who are wrongfully oppressed or persecuted irrespective of their color, caste, or creed.[citation needed]”

                  Doesn’t say they are required to use the kirpan to do it, though.

                  If it were meant to be used as a weapon rather than a reminder, it would need to be accessible and sharp.

                  I suppose one way of testing whether it’s meant to be used as a weapon is to see how extensive the outbreak of kirpan-related stabbings is. Lots of yanks have guns, and their shooting rate is through the roof. What percentage of our Sikh community is incarcerated for stabbing folks with these “weapons”?

                  • Doesn’t say they are required to use the kirpan to do it, though.

                    It’s implied through having to carry it.

                    If it were meant to be used as a weapon rather than a reminder, it would need to be accessible and sharp.

                    I suppose butter knives are sharp now?

                    As for accessibility, if the person can get to it then it’s accessible.

                    What percentage of our Sikh community is incarcerated for stabbing folks with these “weapons”?

                    Nice diversion but not falling for it.

                    The simple fact of the matter is that carrying these weapons is against the law in NZ. Why should we make an exception to them? Should the Black Power, Headhunters and other gangs all be allowed to carry guns because it’s part of their religion?

                    If they wish to live in NZ then they live by NZ’s laws – not the ones in India.

                    • McFlock

                      “Implied”?
                      What qualifies you to make such a proclamation upon the teachings of any religion?

                      Thing about butter knives as weapons is that a sharper knife would have caused greater injury. But then butter knives are designed to be tools for spreading butter, so are sort of shit as weapons.

                      But it does illustrate, along with your ‘gang religion’ argument, the point about carrying weapons: anything is a weapon if carried with the intention of using it to harm others. But everything can be used as a weapon, to greater or lesser effect. And sometimes what looks like a weapon is now just a tool or even a religious item.

                      So it’s a defense of reasonableness. Would an impartial judge decide that the headhunters were carrying firearms as religious objects with no intention of causing harm with them? Doubtful. The entire context of being in a gang makes that idea unreasonable.

                      But a longstanding religious practise that’s not associated with rampant crime – or even any crime in NZ as far as I can find? Seems to me the purpose of the item would be religious observance.

                • greywarshark

                  Good on you DTB Trying to bring some clarity and reason to this.
                  While others find it an interesting subject for endless discussion.

                  We in our country can’t allow people to be going round with weapons, real or fake, tucked away or on display. It only encourages the others don’t you know. I would like to see all fake weapons banished except water pistols, and they are bad enough with possible harmful results.

                  I remember that TV line ‘You’re not in Guatemala now Dr Whatisname’. When in Rome do as the Romans do applies as to NZ.

                  We try to have a good society, some of us, but we have others who if someone is wearing symbolic or fake weapons would love to do so too. Inevitably someone one of such would be shot or attacked in some way, they would only add to the uncertainty on our streets and anxiety and suspicion to police.

                  I think that Sikhs should wear their turbans, and Muslims wear their hajibs, but just not anything they may have been used to. We aren’t as civilised as they would be in India where they come from perhaps.

                  • popexplosion

                    I disagree. The fact that this is ceremonial, blunt, hard to get at, and the person is wearing a turban, shouldn’t bar them. if a Catholic wears a crucifix sharpened into a point and the upper part a handle is this now a weapon. Since arguably the crucifix evolved from the shape of a dagger/sword. So it’s just a matter of deweaponizing the object into a ceremonial object. I would whole heartily agree with banning actual daggers. So the fact that this is talked about as a ban not a negotiation is indicative of racism against Sikhs.

  20. greywarshark 20

    Australians are poor winners! They have got hold of most of our banks from which they are extracting much of our dosh and majorly funding our property boom but not likely to take much risk from small developing business.

    They are a major competitor in our skies with Jetstar. Having ruined us as a country, besmirched our airline brand and our country’s name through us being fool enough to attempt to get into their domestic airline business as a NZ business. The Oz government had granted us that right, only to arbitrarily withdraw. Instead we were offered Ansett, that spent missile, instead. Talk about North and South Korea!

    Then they decide they despise us, having won our resources on the business battlefield. They arbitrarily decide that past criminal offenders should be extracted by keyhole surgery from their family, business and friends and shut away on a foreign shore off Australia, or sent back to the distant homeland. What is our reaction, carry on obsequiously! That could be the title of a satire-laden skit about the supine level of our Anzac friendship!

    We are such poor losers, as in losers who are poor, and bound to regress along those lines if too many of our sheeple vote for Nats. There is a glimmer of hope,
    if we vote for Labour, of dealing with various hostile entities, including Oz. We must realise they are not our friends, the country a rough-house of basic unconcern for fellow humans which shows up in their government as concentrated scouring discourse and harsh policies.

  21. Ross 21

    I posted a video on the other thread about this issue. It shows journalist Patricia Karvelas interviewing Joyce about 3 weeks ago. She raised the issue of his father being a NZer. He said it was a red herring and laughed at the possibility of him having dual citizenship.He is a dick and it is ridiculous of Julie Bishop to blame Hipkins.Indeed the Labor Party handed her her arse in Parliament yesterday.

  22. popexplosion 22

    Hipkins asks question about NZ law in NZ parliament and it causes the Aussie govt to collapse. Geez. Make him PM!

  23. Macro 23

    After 23 Sep and the change of Govt – the first act should be the declaration that all Australians who are members of the Australian government and with the name Peter Dutton, shall henceforth be New Zealand Citizens – This act shall apply immediately and be irrevocable.

    • KJT 23.1

      Why don’t we just say all Australians. NZ citizenship.

      As their Government has proven to be incompetent, we can offer them our National party. At least they are partially competent.

      • Macro 23.1.1

        Gezz Mate! No I just want that xenophobic, racist, psychopath of a “Minister of Immigration” gone.

        • KJT 23.1.1.1

          The whole restriction of New Zealanders started, because all the brown people were getting into Australia through our wide open, door.

          • NewsFlash 23.1.1.1.1

            It was actually a National party policy to coerce the pacific Islanders to Aus to avoid having to pay benefits to them.

          • Macro 23.1.1.1.2

            Yes but is the evil Dutton who has ranked up the persecution of not only NZers sent to Christmas Island, but also the ongoing persecution of Refugees on Manus and Nauru.

    • You_Fool 23.2

      This was the plan on kiwiblog. Pass a law that says that as soon as an Australian takes his seat in the Aus parliament they are instantly also a NZ citizen, so they have to resign, renounce, stand in a by-election, win, take their seat in parliament, become a NZ citizen… infinite loop.

    • lloyd 23.3

      No, make ALL Australia’s parliamentary members New Zealanders automatically on their being elected. Simple.

  24. As his father was a British subject it looks like this Joyce fellow might also be British

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law#British_citizenship_by_descent

  25. greywarshark 25

    You would think that New Zealand Labour was in possession of nuclear tipped medium range missiles and had threatened to let off a few into the sea near Tasmania just to make sure they worked.

    No need for that micky savage. They just unleash the jewel in their diving belt, Julie whatsname – Bishop. Funny that Bishop – Monk got called the mad abbott or was it the other way round. Sounds a perverted sort of religious bias to me. Now why don’t they stick to a juicy game of chess. Or turn themselves into a musical, after all there was one called Chess and that had a gritty story of the sort that would fit the Ozzies well.

    Perhaps the lyrics from I Know Him So Well would suit.
    (If I knew from the start, Why am I falling apart?)
    Boo hoo NZ. One day we will be older and wiser, maybe.
    (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDWWM6h51hc

    Or we should heed Nobody’s Side:-

    Everybody’s playing the game
    But nobody’s rules are the same
    Nobody’s on nobody’s side

    Better learn to go it alone
    Recognize you’re out on your own
    No contract truly signed

    There’s nothing certain left to know
    And how the cracks begin to show
    Never make a promise or plan
    Take a little love when you can
    Nobody’s on nobody’s side

    Never stay too long in your bed
    Never lose your heart, use your head
    Never take a stranger’s advice
    Never let a friend fool you twice
    Nobody’s on nobody’s side
    Chess – Nobodys Side Lyrics | MetroLyrics

  26. NewsFlash 26

    Great article Mickey, factual and informative, shame there aren’t more reporters who value the truth.

    I don’t know if you read Gartrells full story, but he had contacted the Liberals on multiple occasions for a response prior to publication, they did not reply, and he subsequently released the story the same day the Libs announced it.

    There has been significant backlash against Bishop by nearly all media outlets, and with the Libs demise in the senate and lower house yesterday, losing the votes, there are obviously some Libs not happy either.

    Watched Jacinda’s response yesterday, such eloquent diplomacy, something missing from NZ politics for a long time.

    The added publicity for Labour is an unexpected benefit, who would have thought.

    • dukeofurl 26.1

      NZ Minister of Internal Affairs hasnt yet replied to HIpkins questions.

      So the issue has moved on of its own accord, as we all know the answer.

      Joyce has renounced his NZ citizenship but of course thats too late to stop a by election

      • NewsFlash 26.1.1

        Did you see Hipkin’s response to the reporters question : why did you ask the question about citizenship?

        He seemed genuinely dazed at the level interest, his reply was : that he was genuinely interested in the topic of citizenship.

        Who knows, this may be correct.

        • Macro 26.1.1.1

          I hear tell that Hipkin and Gartrell (and indeed) Ardern actually all worked together as policy advisors for Helen Clark in around 2005. So there may indeed be a backstory to this, but who knows.
          Anyway – a huge mountain out of a molehill as far as NZ involvement is concerned.

          • NewsFlash 26.1.1.1.1

            That’s a long bow, but agreed, storm in tea cup created by a very, very desperate Lib/ Nat federal govt.

            Libs behind in the last 17 polls 54 to 46, that’s for Turnbull, previous 30 polls with Abbott were equally poor, hence change of PM

      • Psych nurse 26.1.2

        So who told the Aussies that the written question existed ? or are Parliamentary questions to Ministers public knowledge.

        • NewsFlash 26.1.2.1

          I think it was the reply from Dunn that alerted the Aussies, I don’t know if you saw the news segment with him.

          • dukeofurl 26.1.2.1.1

            Dunn hasnt replied officially till Thursday 17th. By then everyone could give the answer themselves as the media had been all over it for a week. Even English gave the answer when asked by journalists

        • alwyn 26.1.2.2

          “are Parliamentary questions to Ministers public knowledge.”

          They are published as soon as they are received.

          Here are today’s lot. You will see that they are all dated 16 August. I would be amazed if any Australian journalist ever looked at this though. There are thousands of these questions, often computer generated by linking the wording of a single question with a list of names to be inserted into the question.
          I suspect that is how all these questions from Winston were done. Use one question and then repeat it with the name of every single Government Department.

          Warning! I didn’t do it deliberately but the ones you will see are all from Winston Peters. If you can’t stand the man don’t follow the link.

          https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/order-paper-questions/written-questions/

        • mickysavage 26.1.2.3

          They are publicly available. There are a huge number of them and many of them are pretty mundane. They are used to get information rather than point score.

    • greywarshark 26.2

      Gartrell on Radionz this a.m. said that he told the Libs he was going to release the story after trying to get some sensible response from them for a time, and that was when they came out with it themselves.

    • mickysavage 26.3

      Thanks NF. I did read Gartrell’s full story which made me wonder what all the fuss was about. The media were already all over it.

      You have to like the Aussie media. Those that arn’t aligned to Murdoch are brave and fearless and always seem to ask the right questions.

  27. … ” But tories are not noted for their graciousness. Normally any problems that arise are someone else’s fault ” …

    A statement well worth remembering ,… and suggests a something a little like this ;

    The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: Somebody Elses … – YouTube
    you tube▶ 3:33

  28. Treetop 28

    What a bitter pill for the Australian Government to swallow that they did not do all the necessary citizen checking.

    What is the pay back going to be?

    More legislation to kick Kiwis living in Australia.

    I chuckled about W. Peters comparing the event to the cricket underarm incident. When I first heard I thought about the underarm incident as a comparison.

    NZ pulls its weight as a partner of five eyes.

  29. greywarshark 29

    I don’t know that anyone has commented on how sour the gent is in the header image. Is this the pollie in question? He looks as if he just ate NZ and found a fishbone in it. That’s probably Maui’s jawbone he’s got there. Well now he’s Aussie he’d better give it back. They have got enough of our taonga already.

    This from the 1930s ‘Is He an Aussie, Is he Lizzie’ with Malcolm McEachern, famous bass baritone and Englishman B.C.Hillam (Flotsam and Jetsam); the probable fore runner and in the style of the late Flanders & Swann….

    (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-u_i292My4
    Published on May 24, 2010
    McEACHERN, WALTER MALCOLM NEIL (1883-1945), singer, was born on 1 April 1883 at Albury, New South WalesMcEachern was a cultured and convivial musician who disliked pretension, especially in music. The sole aim of his singing was to give enjoyment. His size, jovial nature and booming voice gave him great presence. He recorded 187 studio performances, including opera, operetta, oratorio, art songs, and popular compositions of which 88 were made for the Vocalion Company (1921-27) and 99 (including 53 ‘Flotsam and Jetsam’ duets) for Columbia Graphophone (1927-41). On his centenary in 1983 all his solo recordings for Columbia were issued by EMI (Australia).

    Who among the oldies remember the Gendarmes Duet?
    (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIe3ZMxWOO4

    • NewsFlash 29.1

      Yes, that’s “Barnyard” Joyce, he’s the guy who told Johnny Depp to take his dogs out of Oz, Johnny Depp referred to Joyce as a GM modified tomato, lol.

      He’s the National party leader, and by comparison to the NZ model National Party. he’s just as corrupt and dishonest, something a lot of farmers have in common unfortunately.

      • greywarshark 29.1.1

        Sounds as if he should settle down depply I mean deeply in his old/new home now, dig himself into the graveyard, I mean barnyard, hey what is his name? I’m as confused as he is. However no deporting here please. We don’t want any Oz tricks here, we have enough of our own tricky dickies.

  30. Exkiwiforces 30

    Found this over at Politik and sounds likes there is a bit more to this than everyone is letting on. Anyway happy reading

    http://politik.co.nz/en/content/politics/1168/NZ-Government-kept-Barnaby-Joyce's-citizenship-top-secret-Barnaby-Joyce-Gerry-Brownlee-Julie-Bishop-citizenship.htm

  31. ScottGN 31

    This piece on the ABC from veteran Canberra politics journo Michelle Grattan is worth a read.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-16/barnaby-joyce-citizenship-nz-conspiracy-michelle-grattan/8812432

  32. mosa 32

    That woman Bishop is deranged and a hypocrite.

    Accusing our Labour party of interfering in their politics is a joke when they actively campaigned in Australia targeting NZ voters on behalf of John Key during the 2014 election which is a serious intrusion in our domestic affairs.

    Imagine the uproar over there if Labour was to do the same during a federal election in Australia aimed at ex pat Aussies here !

  33. Ross 33

    Meanwhile, long-time Aussie journo, Laurie Oakes, is pretty scathing of Bishop’s conspiracy theory.

  34. Ross 36

    Meanwhile, another Tory Minister in Aussie could have dual citizenship.

    Jesus the New Zealand Labour Party is doing wonders since Jacinda’s promotion to Leader. Who knew they had the power to bring down the Australian Government!

    It’s unclear who Julie Bishop intends to blame for this latest debacle.

    http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/michael-keenan-may-be-dual-citizen-of-uk-and-australia/news-story/fb70840090613e9d180078100050cefc

  35. Sable 37

    In my opinion its starting to sound a little like the nonsense coming out of the USA blaming the Russian’s for everything from election failures/successes to stubbed toes…….

  36. Exkiwiforces 38

    In this morning paper this appear.

    “TAKE NOTICE that the High Court of Australia will sit as the Court of Disputed Returns pursuant to s 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 at 10:15am (AEST) on Thursday 24 August 2017 at the Commonwealth Law Courts Building, 119 North Quay, Brisbane of the purpose of giving directions as to the hearing and determination by the Court of Disputed Returns of the following questions transmitted by the House of Representatives on Tuesday 15 August 2017 pursuant to s 377 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
    a) whether, by reason of s 44(I) of the Constitution, place of the Member of New England (Mr Joyce) has become vacant;

    b)if the answer to Question (a) is “yes”, by what means and in what manner that vacancy should be filled;

    c) what directions and other orders, if any should the Court make in order to hear and finally dispose of this reference; and

    d) what, if any, order should be made as to the costs of these proceedings.”

    The rest the court notice is the usual fluff.

    Word on the street here ATM from what I gather is the right wing of the Liberal party are going to make a move on Mal. The house of reps is getting to a point where the Liberal’s is losing it grip on things.

  37. Exkiwiforces 39

    Another one bits the dust, The deputy leader of the National party Fiona Nash is being referred to the Court of Disputed Returns over her dual citizenship (UK citizenship). Fiona Nash is in the senate.

    It appears two members of the government in the house of reps maybe referred to the Court of Disputed Returns and if that happens it could be all over for Mal.

  38. Exkiwiforces 40

    Here’s a update on the current shenanigans of the Australian Parliament;

    The second link tells who’s off the Court of Disputed Returns, the possibles and the probable’s (its starting to sound like an old school All Black selection rugby match)

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-18/future-of-turnbull-government-rests-on-high-court/8820112

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-18/parliament-citizenship-woes-what-on-earth-is-happening/8820688

Recent Comments

Recent Posts