Foxy,

How come your claimed 'balance' didn't find the most obvious, the Wikipedia entry?

"Eligibility to hold Senate office
On 30 July 2010, Tasmanian resident John Hawkins lodged an objection to Abetz's nomination for re-election, alleging that Abetz still held dual citizenship of both his birthplace, Germany, and Australia. Hawkins subsequently withdrew the petition to the High Court of Australia after receiving appropriate documentation, and the High Court never heard the claim."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Abetz

An interesting article on the issue:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/greens-senator-resignations-overseas-born-mps-insist-they-clear-to-sit-in-parliament-20170719-gxej8z.html

Going by what is said there, the law DOES need to change.

It's one thing to expect people to renounce a citizenship from a country that they had to have known they were born in, but when people can automatically be made citizens of countries they've never even stepped foot in, purely because of their ancestry, then a legal absurdity has been created and the law needs to change.

Outdated or ambiguous law is nothing a bit of healthy judicial activism can't fix (see Adler v George for a funny example), but a more formalist approach tends to be taken when it comes to the Constitution, especially when the provisions are as specific as s 44(i) is. Today's interpretation of less-specific provisions, on the other hand, such as the External Affairs power (s 51(xxix)), would have the founding fathers rolling in their graves, given how much power it has sucked from the states and given to the Commonwealth.

Unfortunately a referendum will be needed. This law seems to be doing nothing more than creating an increasingly complex headache for the political parties that are trying to dot their 'I's and cross their 't's.

AJ,

One can be entitled to citizenship of a country through ancestry but in all cases that I know of it's not granted automatically and one has to apply for it (or your parents do if you are a minor).

Foxy, Paul,

"German citizenship is automatically lost when a German citizen voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another country"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nationality_law

So Abetz as an Aus citizen was automatically not a German Citizen. That he submitted a form of renunciation of his citizenship to the German embassy to avoid a potentially expensive court case does not mean that he was a German citizen before the 2010 renunciation. So all Lib MPs have documentary proof that they don't have dual citizenship.

P.S. As all new MPs have to sign a statutory form declaring a number of things incl that they do not hold citizenship of another country, the two green numbnuts have essentially committed fraud.

Shadow Minister,

That's what I thought, too. But the article I linked to suggests otherwise (which is why I was careful to qualify what I said with, "Going by what is said [in the article] ...").

Upon re-reading the article, however, I think it's a little unclear as to whether such so-called "automatic" citizenship must always be activated MANUALLY, or just activated manually some of the time:

"But others may have found themselves citizens of another nation without ever having stepped foot on it ..." (http://goo.gl/u8zk8v)

"Found themselves" suggests that they did not activate their citizenship entitlement.

If it must always be activated manually, then I would fall back to the arguments I presented earlier for not changing the Constitution:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7851#242681

FFS. This is the reason I rarely ever link to news articles.

leoj,

Wrong again - Take a look at this:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7851&page=8

I became curious about John Hawkins and as a result came
up with the following link about Abetz:

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/john-hawkins-questions-for-senator-abetz-

We still don't know if Senator Abetz's parents ever became
Australian citizens (and he did as part of their naturalisation
process). His Renunciation only took place in 2010.
What about 1994?
and the sixteen years Senator Abetz was in Parliament - did he have
dual citizenship ? It's unclear.

In Queensland there considerable angst is being expressed in newspapers such as The Courier Mail about the large losses to the taxpayer resulting from Greens lack of due diligence in the case of Larissa Waters in particular.

Where a member of the public causes a loss to government s/he is sent a bill for same, often with interest payable and a threat of debt collection action where the account is not settled within a certain timeframe, a fortnight is common. However a member of the public is very likely to be proceeded against in Court where the offence and/or losses are of any consequence.

Where a member of the public is concerned, ignorance is no excuse. There should be no difference between the 'big knobs' of society, in this case the very well paid and well-connected Senators and an ordinary member of the public. But obviously there is, as is already apparent from the special pleading and emotional rhetoric in the media and from their political mates. That is favouritism.

An ordinary member of the public doesn't have well placed interests to spin for him/her either. Spin that would pretend that s/he is the victim and not the one who committed the offence.

In the case of Senators and political parties the law does exist, it is in the Constitution no less and all knew about it. All are required to sign documents and attention is specifically drawn to their requirements, which are publicly available and freely accessible. There can be no question that they and the Greens were ignorant of the law.

We cannot just decide which laws we will obey and which we will not, based on how we find them. Or that we are casual and do not care enough to ensure compliance.

What prevents Ludlam and Waters being progressed against like any other member of the public. Surely they would want their day in court to make their case. And the taxpayer should be recompensed for losses.