Beoz

Its also a shame you can't admit your love for the labor party.

Don't worry, you aren't alone. No one ever admits it. I think people feel a shamed by it.

BritInParis

When Joyce was born in 1967 his father was a NZ citizen by birth, the same as anyone else who had been born in NZ, barring the usual exemption for children born to foreign diplomats. The status of British subject as a separate nationality category, apart from a handful with a connection to pre-independence Ireland or India, ended on 1 January 1949 when the British Nationality Act 1948 came into force and created the new category of Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Each dominion then created its own citizenship laws. As the child of a NZ-born father Joyce would have received NZ citizenship by descent automatically.

This is incorrect. As a British subject who hadn't been born in Australia he would have needed to have been ordinarily resident in Australia for five years prior to 26 January 1949. At best he had been resident for two. Unless his father was born in the UK then he wouldn't have become a CUKC either. The only possible citizenship he could have held would have been NZ citizenship. He didn't need to have been living in NZ at the time the law came into force; his birth there was sufficient. Joyce's father would have known this because unless he made a separate application for Australian citizenship he would only been entitled to a NZ passport. Joyce himself hasn't denied that his father is a New Zealander only that he has never 'claimed' New Zealand citizenship for himself. The problem is he doesn't need to - he always has been a NZ citizen.

Beoz

It only matters when the lawyers pull apart the vague wording of section 44.

There would be an excellent chance Joyce's father had no clue he was a NZ citizen. If he had not travelled there would be no need to prove nor check up on his status. As you say, he may have spent the 2 years in Oz from 1947-1949 and been an Aussie citizen when the British subject thing ended. One would then not bother questioning the other.

I had no clue I was both an Aussie and British citizen by birth and decent until I needed to work in both countries. Why would I check or care? I probably wouldn't check if I was an MP, until this debacle broke out.

There's many countries with obscure citizenship laws. I bet there's some that won't let you renounce at all. Isn't there an Iranian polly who wrote a letter to renounce and never heard back.

GarryP

Sigh

As has been demonstrated to you, the wording isn't vague. It says plain as day, if you are a citizen of another country, you aren't eligible to stand.It's also worth reading a previous case of dual citizenship

Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30; 199 CLR 462; 163 ALR 648; 73 ALJR 1016 (23 June 1999)

in particular sec 175-176

In short, providing they follow the constitution and the precedent set by the high court, Joyce is out. There is wiggle room for others that applied to renunciation as to what "reasonable steps" means. My guess is they will take many pages over that little question - but in the case of Joyce is was and remains an NZ citizen, so this case applies.

cresta57

Ahh Heather Hill where was she born? London! 14k miles from Tamworth and no similarities to this case. Let's not forget they put Pauline in prison to get rid of her.

old.sparkles

If, as an Australian, he had a child born overseas that child would be an Australian Citizen by descent - something readily claimed by many Australians.

Similarly, expats who have children born here know that their children are British by descent.

It's not another country claiming and Australian as their own - it is what it says on the packet - dual citizenship with one of them being a by descent citizenship.

EG - if you moved here before your children were born, they are British and their children, your grandchildren are British by descent. If you wanted to prove that, you do not need a certificate, you can apply directly for their passports with proof that their parents are British.

I don't understand what people are trying to make so difficult about a simple matter. The more confusing cases arise from when citizenship can continue past a first generation which I think is the case with Italy, Ireland, etc.

Pollyana

As an MP it would be your responsibility to check. If you don't, you are negligent.

spouse of scouse

...not to mention a bit dim

Beoz

How? I have ancestry through England, France, one of the Scandinavian countries (not sure which), Australia, and Ireland. That's what I do know. There is probably more that I don't. So I would have to renounce through every country in Europe just to be sure.

Get real.

Beoz

Zzzzz. You are not listening again.

Refer back to post 90. Then refer to this, written 9 hours ago. http://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/robert-angyal/section-44-of-the-constitution-means-nobody-is-eligible-to-be-el_a_23078667/

This barrister just appeared on the ABC news too. I'm sure you were tuned into your favourite left wing tabloid.

This is far from clear cut, and that's before section 7 of New Zealand law gets thrown into the mix.

GarryP

All of which, as well as being purposely stupid, have nothing to do with the clause that means Joyce isn't an MP.

Seriously, do you think the High Court reading of that catch all clause would be as this lowly barrister thinks?Someone is looking for some publicity...

Beoz

Can you bring it back from name calling? All it does is lower respect.

GarryP

Well, first of all there was no name calling.

And secondly, I have no respect for crass stupidity. In fact my tolerance threshold is lowering the more of it I see in the world.

Call a *****wit a *****wit. Maybe they will realise that's what they are. Facts and subtly obviously don't work.

Beoz

That's not debating. That's name calling.

BritInParis

No, I said the opposite of that. Joyce's father would not have received Australian citizenship in 1949 as he had not resided in Australia long enough to be eligible. He would have only been eligible for NZ citizenship. In order to became an Australian citizen he would have needed to apply for naturalisation.

Except it's a widely publicised legal requirement in order to became an MP or senator. As you say, you didn't bother to find out for sure until you needed to. If you wanted to run for Parliament it's a reasonable assumption you would have done the same.

It's hardly an obscure situation given his father was born in NZ. Joyce has just been lazy and, unlike Iran, NZ does let its citizens renounce.