I’ve been diddled.
Jul 20th 2007, 12:56 am
#1
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,316
I’ve been diddled.
When I applied for Australian Citizenship, I was told that one of the rights I would get would be to stand for public office. However it turns out that I can’t stand for Federal Parliament, as dual nationals are not allowed (unless they’ve made reasonable efforts to renounce their other nationalities). S44 of the Constitution prohibits any member from holding allegiance to a foreign power.
Do you think I can get a refund or a discount on the cost of my citizenship?
Do you think I can get a refund or a discount on the cost of my citizenship?
Jul 20th 2007, 1:08 am
#2
has lost The Game
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Chippendale, Sydney
Posts: 8,735
Re: I’ve been diddled.
When I applied for Australian Citizenship, I was told that one of the rights I would get would be to stand for public office. However it turns out that I can’t stand for Federal Parliament, as dual nationals are not allowed (unless they’ve made reasonable efforts to renounce their other nationalities). S44 of the Constitution prohibits any member from holding allegiance to a foreign power.
Do you think I can get a refund or a discount on the cost of my citizenship?
Do you think I can get a refund or a discount on the cost of my citizenship?
S
Jul 20th 2007, 1:53 am
#4
has lost The Game
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Chippendale, Sydney
Posts: 8,735
Re: I’ve been diddled.
Did you think you were in with a good chance? Have any good policies up your sleeve?
Does this apply to state as well as Federal? I recall reading that the position of Governor General had to be filled by someone who was undeniably Australian.
S
Jul 20th 2007, 2:10 am
#6
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,316
Re: I’ve been diddled.
The state goverments have no restriction.
Jul 20th 2007, 2:16 am
#7
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,316
Re: I’ve been diddled.
There's one possible alternative to changing the law. The actual Constitution of Australia is a legal document of the UK parliament. The UK is now subject to European law which disallows laws that discriminate on nationality. Therefore this section of the constitution has no legal basis.
Unfortunately the Australian High Court has a history of ignoring tricky legal postitions.
Jul 20th 2007, 3:34 am
#8
Retired
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 34,649
Re: I’ve been diddled.
Bugger.
There's one possible alternative to changing the law. The actual Constitution of Australia is a legal document of the UK parliament. The UK is now subject to European law which disallows laws that discriminate on nationality. Therefore this section of the constitution has no legal basis.
Unfortunately the Australian High Court has a history of ignoring tricky legal postitions.
There's one possible alternative to changing the law. The actual Constitution of Australia is a legal document of the UK parliament. The UK is now subject to European law which disallows laws that discriminate on nationality. Therefore this section of the constitution has no legal basis.
Unfortunately the Australian High Court has a history of ignoring tricky legal postitions.
The interpretation of section 44i of the Constitution dates from a 1992 High Court ruling. At some point there may be enough bipartisan interest to change the wording and replace it with a positive requirement that a candidate for public office should be an Australian citizen.
The Constitution predated the concept of Australian citizenship by just over 48 years.
The ruling does not apply to State parliaments or local councils. And incidentally, British citizenship can be renounced but then it might not be so easy to get it back later on (it's quite a serious step to take).
Jul 20th 2007, 3:47 am
#9
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,352
Re: I’ve been diddled.
Since the Australia Act 1986 - forget it.
The interpretation of section 44i of the Constitution dates from a 1992 High Court ruling. At some point there may be enough bipartisan interest to change the wording and replace it with a positive requirement that a candidate for public office should be an Australian citizen.
The Constitution predated the concept of Australian citizenship by just over 48 years.
The ruling does not apply to State parliaments or local councils. And incidentally, British citizenship can be renounced but then it might not be so easy to get it back later on (it's quite a serious step to take).
The interpretation of section 44i of the Constitution dates from a 1992 High Court ruling. At some point there may be enough bipartisan interest to change the wording and replace it with a positive requirement that a candidate for public office should be an Australian citizen.
The Constitution predated the concept of Australian citizenship by just over 48 years.
The ruling does not apply to State parliaments or local councils. And incidentally, British citizenship can be renounced but then it might not be so easy to get it back later on (it's quite a serious step to take).
Jul 20th 2007, 3:56 am
#10
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,316
Re: I’ve been diddled.
Since the Australia Act 1986 - forget it.
The interpretation of section 44i of the Constitution dates from a 1992 High Court ruling. At some point there may be enough bipartisan interest to change the wording and replace it with a positive requirement that a candidate for public office should be an Australian citizen.
The Constitution predated the concept of Australian citizenship by just over 48 years.
The ruling does not apply to State parliaments or local councils. And incidentally, British citizenship can be renounced but then it might not be so easy to get it back later on (it's quite a serious step to take).
The interpretation of section 44i of the Constitution dates from a 1992 High Court ruling. At some point there may be enough bipartisan interest to change the wording and replace it with a positive requirement that a candidate for public office should be an Australian citizen.
The Constitution predated the concept of Australian citizenship by just over 48 years.
The ruling does not apply to State parliaments or local councils. And incidentally, British citizenship can be renounced but then it might not be so easy to get it back later on (it's quite a serious step to take).
Jul 20th 2007, 3:58 am
#11
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: I’ve been diddled.
Further to JAJ's response...
No, it isn't.
I think you are confusing the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 with the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, which was created by the Australian people (via referendum) during the period 1898-1900.
While Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 was originally a legal document of the UK Parliament, it is now a legal document of the Australian Parliament:
The original Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), as signed into law by Queen Victoria, has been repatriated to Australia. The Australian Government requested it, and the British Government agreed to release it under the Australian Constitution (Public Record Copy) Act 1990 (UK).
Source.
By contrast, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia was never a UK document, having been formulated and agreed upon by the Australian people themselves, without any reference to the UK. It is quoted within the text of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, but only for the sake of reference. It is not a product of the UK Parliament - which in any case, has no power or legal right over the Australian Constitution:
Even though the Constitution was originally given legal force by an Act of the United Kingdom parliament, as Australia is now an independent country, the United Kingdom parliament has no power to change the Constitution, and only the Australian people can amend it (by referendum).
Wikipedia.
This has no relevance to Australia or her Constitution.
Yes, it does. The EU has no power to rule on the Australian Constitution. The High and Federal Courts of Australia are the only institutions legally authorised to interpret our constitutional provisions. (See the Wikipedia. again).
FYI, S44(i) has been legally challenged and upheld by the High Court (see Sue v Hill, 1999).
Additionally:
On 30 October 2003, the Senate passed a motion moved by Australian Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett, expressing the Senate’s view ‘that sections 44(i.) and 44(iv.) of the Constitution should be amended to remove the current prohibition on dual citizens and public sector employees being able to nominate for election to the Commonwealth Parliament’.
www.aph.gov.au
This bill was reviewed in 2005, and received bipartisan support. As far as I am aware, the recommended change has yet to be made.
FWIW, I believe that S44(i) should be removed. It is an obsolete rule, created at a time when Australian citizenship did not actually exist. While perfectly sensible and relevant for that period, it is now completely anachronistic and wholly unsuited to our modern, multicultural society.
PS. Interesting fact: the Queen herself is required to swear allegiance to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. She is not permitted any allegiance to a foreign power (such as Australia or Canada), regardless of their relationship to the UK. So it would seem that the British monarch is not permitted to hold dual citizenship either.
I think you are confusing the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 with the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, which was created by the Australian people (via referendum) during the period 1898-1900.
While Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 was originally a legal document of the UK Parliament, it is now a legal document of the Australian Parliament:
The original Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), as signed into law by Queen Victoria, has been repatriated to Australia. The Australian Government requested it, and the British Government agreed to release it under the Australian Constitution (Public Record Copy) Act 1990 (UK).
By contrast, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia was never a UK document, having been formulated and agreed upon by the Australian people themselves, without any reference to the UK. It is quoted within the text of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, but only for the sake of reference. It is not a product of the UK Parliament - which in any case, has no power or legal right over the Australian Constitution:
Even though the Constitution was originally given legal force by an Act of the United Kingdom parliament, as Australia is now an independent country, the United Kingdom parliament has no power to change the Constitution, and only the Australian people can amend it (by referendum).
The UK is now subject to European law which disallows laws that discriminate on nationality.
Therefore this section of the constitution has no legal basis.
Unfortunately the Australian High Court has a history of ignoring tricky legal postitions.
Additionally:
On 30 October 2003, the Senate passed a motion moved by Australian Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett, expressing the Senate’s view ‘that sections 44(i.) and 44(iv.) of the Constitution should be amended to remove the current prohibition on dual citizens and public sector employees being able to nominate for election to the Commonwealth Parliament’.
This bill was reviewed in 2005, and received bipartisan support. As far as I am aware, the recommended change has yet to be made.
FWIW, I believe that S44(i) should be removed. It is an obsolete rule, created at a time when Australian citizenship did not actually exist. While perfectly sensible and relevant for that period, it is now completely anachronistic and wholly unsuited to our modern, multicultural society.
PS. Interesting fact: the Queen herself is required to swear allegiance to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. She is not permitted any allegiance to a foreign power (such as Australia or Canada), regardless of their relationship to the UK. So it would seem that the British monarch is not permitted to hold dual citizenship either.
Jul 20th 2007, 4:04 am
#12
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: I’ve been diddled.
Catherine Helen Spence (Scottish), Victor Chang (Chinese), David Unaipon (Aboriginal), Fred Hollows (New Zealander), Caroline Chisholm (English), Michael Klim (Polish), Bryce Courtney (South African) and Kosta Tszyu (Russian) all prove you wrong.
Examples could be multiplied.
Take your pathetic xenophobia elsewhere; it's neither wanted nor appreciated.
Jul 20th 2007, 4:06 am
#13
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,316
Re: I’ve been diddled.
Thanks for all of that Vash but I was joking
Obviously if I wanted to become a Federal MP then giving up my UK citizenship would not be a impediment.
Obviously if I wanted to become a Federal MP then giving up my UK citizenship would not be a impediment.
Jul 20th 2007, 4:09 am
#14
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: I’ve been diddled.
Jul 20th 2007, 4:11 am
#15
Retired
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 34,649
Re: I’ve been diddled.
She is not permitted any allegiance to a foreign power (such as Australia or Canada), regardless of their relationship to the UK.
So it would seem that the British monarch is not permitted to hold dual citizenship either.
And the same applies in Australia. The Queen of Australia cannot be an Australian citizen. However, the Migration Act 1958 does not apply to the Queen. This was researched by the Commonwealth Parliament in 1995:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/r...-96/96rn06.pdf