Breaking the constitution is something you don’t wan’t to mess with, it is the very fabric which underpins the rest of the legal system and the Government itself. Bend a rule here and then you’re setting a precedent that they are all open for interpretation. It’s not like the country is going to go under because of this rule, just a bit of political turmoil which has happened many times before, and if it gets bad enough the Governor General could step in. Judges shouldn’t be in a position to bend the law to save a particular government, their job is to interpret the law.
It was a joke. That said the Constitution does leave Australia open to such shenanigans. If I was leader of a hostile country, I would do it just to throw the country into chaos.
1 Like
Part of s44 “under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power”
NZ law: “Under recent and little-noticed changes to New Zealand law, Australian citizens now don’t need a visa to live, study or work in the Land of the Long White Cloud. That’s right: Any Australian citizen is entitled to live, study and work there,” Angyal said.
3 Likes
Nope, that doesn’t make you a “subject” of a State. Subject is in reference to being in a state under a Monarchy, as opposed to a Citizen who is not. Being entitled to [arbitrary criteria] doesn’t make you entitled to be a “subject”. For countries which allow Subjects, they set the criteria to be one.
2 Likes
Nope, it just says “entitled to the rights and privileges”.
You don’t even have to be a subject.
1 Like
Have a read of the article I linked. It’s one interpretation of sect44, is it right? The High Court will tell.
1 Like
Doubtful they would see it that way. It’s a real stretch.
It takes more than living, studying and working to be anywhere near the same rights as subjects/citizens in law, namely actually being “eligible” according to their law for starters.
2 Likes
As long as there are some things that only proper NZ citizens can do (or NZ + the islands) I think we’ll be safe from that interpretation.
Not like Aussies can vote in NZ national elections…
2 Likes
So expect a fairly quick referendum soon after the High Court gives its interpretation? Because that’s what it’s sounding like.
I doubt the High Court will interpret it as broadly as that article supposes is possible, I only linked it as part of having a good laugh where above @Frew referenced foreign powers being able to essentially remove our Reps by granting them rights. I remembered I had read an article supposing that may already have happened and so I dug it up to share!
I would bet though that the High Court will be quite angry in having to undo the legal mess these politicians have created.
1 Like
That’s a barristers opinion
2 Likes
Yup 
That’s part of why I shared it, also as a little bit of a thought experiment to help people here understand just how broad the actual text of the entitlements part is, to fail that clause does not take much when you really read into it.
1 Like
Assuming that the High Court sees it the way most people think and the Duals are out, I think that it will just go to the next person with the most votes if they’re in the same party/ticket, otherwise a by-election where the same candidates will run with their citizenship issues resolved and everyone will learn their lesson in the future.
If in that time the current government thinks they will lose the balance of power anyway, they will suck up to the cross benchers like crazy and if that doesn’t work, do what they can to trigger an early election.
If the current government actually lose a vote of no confidence in that time, I think that the GG would not accept it while a by-election result is pending.
1 Like
I haven’t read forward enough to know if anyone has addressed your concern, Paul, but, IIRC, this scenario of malicious governments granting citizenships to exclude people has been considered in the past, and excluded as a disqualifying situation.