Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Economy

Tony Abbott is almost certainly a British dual citizen — and so he can’t be our PM

Independent Australia Managing editor David Donovan explains why he has just come to the view that Tony Abbott is very likely to still be a British citizen and thus ineligible to sit in the Australian Parliament — let alone be the prime minister.

TONY ABBOTT IS A DUAL CITIZEN of Britain and Australia and thus ineligible to sit in Federal Parliament under s44 of the Australian Constitution. Almost certainly.

Let me explain why I finally reached this conclusion — just yesterday.

Yesterday, because before then I was of the view that Mr Abbott had, most probably, renounced his British citizenship sometime between June 1999 and November 2001. Yes, I know the website I run has published numerous articles before now suggesting Abbott may indeed be a dual citizen — and I stand by every one.

I am open to all possibilities until definitive proof is shown one way or the other. Aren’t you?

But I thought it was unlikely. A bit of a diversion. In the end, when push came to shove, I was pretty sure that Abbott would magically produce his “Form RN”, so that all the “conspiracy theorists” suggesting he was still a British national would be left with warm beer and soggy chips all over their Abbott-hating faces.

But, as time went on …

Read the rest of the argument, Independent Australia, HERE

• Karl Stevens, in Comments: Simon Warriner comment 11 could be right but I don’t think it will be the Child Abuse Royal Commission that brings Abbott down. Just because Abbott provided a character reference for a priest who was later excommunicated, isn’t enough for Abbott to lose power. Likewise his friendship with George Pell. Abbott’s body language is of a man almost drunk with power but also driven by paranoia coming from many quarters including his own party. I think Abbott will ‘self destruct’. It isn’t possible to pull stunts like vacating the entire chamber during Shorten’s same sex marriage bill but also promise to attend his own sister’s same sex marriage even though he doesn’t support it. Where does this guy get off? And this is only one of thousands of Abbott contradictions, half truths and outright lies in my view. That’s the problem with walking the twisted path of dishonesty, you always bump into one of your own lies because you forgot telling it.

• Kim Peart, in Comments: This story now hits the Sydney Morning Herald ~ SMH HERE: The technicality which could topple Tony Abbott • Excerpt from article: Most Australians it seems, even those who disagree with the Prime Minister on just about everything, accept that he was democratically elected, and have no desire to see him ruled out on what would be really no more than a technicality. A compelling piece written this week, however, by the editor of Independent Australia, has gone viral, with 8.8 K likes on Facebook, and 1.4 K tweets. It notes that, whatever else, the PM was not an Australian at all until the age of 21 when he was obliged to be one to get his Rhodes Scholarship. And it notes his refusal to show the form which really proves he “has renounced his British citizenship.” We’ll see. All up, the easiest thing to kill it stone-dead would be to produce the form.

• Bazabee, in Comments: #1 Closer to home I recall that the then ALP Senator Nick Sherry also had not ended his UK citizenship before he was sworn in, when this was pointed out to him he quickly did so. And while my memory is foggy on this point I think that ex Senator Sue Mackay might also have had a similar problem which she was also able to resolve quickly. Dual citizenship cannot be held by our elected politicians there is no way, and nor should there be. If indeed Tony Abbott retains dual citizenship he should not be sitting as a member of Parliament let alone be the Prime Minister of this country. If other Federal members were forced to prove that they had given up the citizenship of their birth country, and clearly this is the case, then so must Tony Abbott and he must explain why he hasn’t done so in the past. The PM is not above the law.

26 Comments

26 Comments

  1. Kim Peart

    May 31, 2015 at 11:58 am

    As described in this article, Abbott forget to be an Australian citizen when applying for the Rhodes scholarship and won it. Apparently he didn’t have to prove that he was Australian to apply. He didn’t fix it, but his Mum did: so often someone else has to clean up after Abbott, it seems.

    In the light of this track record, it is quite likely that Abbott was a dual citizen when entering the Australian Parliament in 1994 on a by-election.

    When Jackie Kelly won Lindsay in the 1996 Federal election, she couldn’t take her seat, because of being a dual New Zealand and Australian citizen. Kelly fixed that and won the rerun later that year.

    If Abbot had overlooked the constitutional requirements, he may have quietly surrendered his British passport when Kelly couldn’t take her seat. If he did, then he would have contested and won two elections illegally.

    Clearly, any shadow of doubt was settled in the 1999 Sue v Hill decision.

    Could the 1999 decision offer some escape for Abbott, if he had run illegally in 2 or more elections?

    If yes, why did Kelly have to re-contest Lindsay to take her seat in the Australian Federal Parliament in 1996.

    If Abbott is still a dual citizen, then the whole nation needs to know this.

    If Abbott will not show us the date when he surrendered his British passport, are we to assume that he is illegally in parliament and an illegal Prime Minister?

    The recent push by Abbott to remove Australian citizenship from Australian citizens on charges of being involved in terrorism, smacks of someone who doesn’t care much about what it means to be an Australian citizen.

    As a land that began as a prison, is Abbott in the end just another British convict getting away with blue-murder in the land DownUnder.

    If we will not demand to be shown when Abbott surrendered his British passport, then we have no respect for law or the Australian constitution.

    Abbott can remain innocent until proven guilty, but withholding the evidence, Abbott looks increasingly guilty.

    Who will clean up after this Abbott mess?

    Kim Peart

  2. mr t

    May 31, 2015 at 12:28 pm

    It seems to me the failing is with insufficient evidence sought by the AEC for any aspiring politician. I assume there would be a declaration with an offence for a false or misleading statement.

    Alternatively, we could just ask his mum.

  3. Russell

    May 31, 2015 at 1:34 pm

    Don’t forget to include his henchman, Erik Abetz, in the mix of holding office illegally. Maybe the Federal Police or whoever’s responsible should investigate each and every federal politician?

  4. Russell

    May 31, 2015 at 1:58 pm

    For Abbott to have practiced Law, this is disgraceful and he should feel the full affect of the Law.

  5. John Hawkins

    May 31, 2015 at 3:21 pm

    Kim,

    I am afraid the law in Australia does not work like that.

    A citizen at his own cost can challenge an elected member of parliament over dual nationality but only within a 30 day period after an election and only obviously only for that election all previous elections are beyond challenge.

    This challenge is heard by the High Court acting as the Court of Disputed Returns.

    I went through this exercise with Abetz at considerable personal cost and had to withdraw when Abetz produced his Renunciation Certificate on the steps of the Court at a hearing called by me and held as the law requires within 30 days of the election.

    Abetz had renounced his German citizenship just before that election in full knowledge of my forthcoming challenge.

    He had therefore been sitting illegally in the Senate for many years prior to that election for you cannot renounce a citizenship you do not have.

    Abetz should be stripped of his entitlements and salary as accumulated during his illegal tenancy of a Senate seat as a Senator from Tasmania, for he was a dual German/ Australian National.

    As the Minister for Employment he has no hesitation over legislating to do this to others for rorting the system.

    He and Abbott are possibly tarred with the same brush and we the people are merely feather dusters in an ongoing saga.

    Where is the Abbott Renunciation Certificate he should be made to table it in the Parliament before he or others are allowed to strip anybody of their nationality.

  6. John Hawkins

    June 1, 2015 at 12:44 pm

    The push by Abbott over dual nationality should prompt this question from a non Government pollie in the House of Reps;

    “A Question to the Prime Minister over dual citizenship. Will you table the Certificate of Renunciation of your British citizenship in this parliament. This is a must have document for a Prime Minister who was born in another country. If not why not?”

    Then we can see if there is in fact a problem at Head of Government level over dual nationality and citizenship in our dysfunctional parliament.

  7. Russell

    June 1, 2015 at 1:24 pm

    Abbott displays the height of epitome when he wants power to strip others of their citizenship while keeping all of his and then illegally sitting at the head of our nation’s Government.

    No wonder corruption in Australia is rife!

  8. Kim Peart

    June 1, 2015 at 1:31 pm

    Re: 6 ~ John Hawkins ~

    This is a great question.

    The burning issue is, why isn’t it being asked by every Federal politician who honours our constitution?

    The failure to ask and demand an answer is just as damning as Abbott’s refusal to reveal the facts.

    Why have a constitution if we will not honour it and demand that it be honoured?

    Kim Peart

  9. Simon warriner

    June 1, 2015 at 2:19 pm

    That’s what you get when conflicted interest is the defacto setting

  10. John Hawkins

    June 1, 2015 at 10:37 pm

    Did the readership of TT see the front page of the Australian as Shorten raises the subject of “marriage between two people”.

    Team Abbott have left the chamber and Shorten addresses empty Government benches.

    That is the time to ask my question when the Liberals cannot be bothered to attend.

    We pay these jerks to represent us.

    They are so childish and pathetic and to think we actually have to pay them.

    Run the image as an advert in every newspaper in the land.

    Lock the bastards in the chamber .

  11. Simon Warriner

    June 1, 2015 at 11:42 pm

    I am quite happy to let Abbott remain in place until Cardinal George Pell has faced the Royal Commission…. Given what has been revealed in Ballarat, and given Abbott’s whole hearted and absolutely un-equivicating support for Pell, I am confident Abbott is going to have to explain his support. That support forms a very durable chain between the Prime Minister and a man whose career should soon be impersonating the Titanic.

    Watching him hoisted on that shameful petard is far more appealing than seeing him resign on this technicality.

  12. Karl Stevens

    June 2, 2015 at 2:24 am

    Simon Warriner comment 11 could be right but I don’t think it will be the Child Abuse Royal Commission that brings Abbott down. Just because Abbott provided a character reference for a priest who was later excommunicated, isn’t enough for Abbott to lose power. Likewise his friendship with George Pell.
    Abbott’s body language is of a man almost drunk with power but also driven by paranoia coming from many quarters including his own party.
    I think Abbott will ‘self destruct’. It isn’t possible to pull stunts like vacating the entire chamber during Shorten’s same sex marriage bill but also promise to attend his own sister’s same sex marriage even though he doesn’t support it. Where does this guy get off? And this is only one of thousands of Abbott contradictions, half truths and outright lies in my view.
    That’s the problem with walking the twisted path of dishonesty, you always bump into one of your own lies because you forgot telling it.

  13. Kim Peart

    June 3, 2015 at 11:24 am

    When, I wonder, will the Australian people declare a ~ “Come to Jesus” ~ awakening for PM Abbott, to deliver truth in national identity, loyalty and allegiance.

    Who wouldn’t like to know that Australia is being led by a true blue Aussie?

    Kim Peart

  14. Kim Peart

    June 6, 2015 at 11:34 am

  15. Andrei Nikulinsky

    June 6, 2015 at 2:46 pm

    They call it a “technicality”.

  16. Simon Warriner

    June 6, 2015 at 3:06 pm

    Karl, we could both be right, it is a matter of timing.

    As KP has just pointed out, the issue of Abbott’s legitimacy has now made it to the mainstream press. His support of Pell is one rather large example of the internal contradictions you focus on. My pick is that it is the one that will bring him undone, and it will be because he refuses to see Pell the way the vast majority of Australians see him, and he will be compelled, by his internal contradictions, to defend him in the face of overwhelming evidence. Add into that mix a question of his legitimacy and he is unbackable at any odds.

  17. Russell

    June 6, 2015 at 3:41 pm

    Re #14
    It’s not a “technicality” as stated in the piece, it’s Law at its highest with nothing else to appeal to.

    It Constitutional and should and must be obeyed, and Abbott must be stripped of his Prime Ministership along with his ill-gotten position in Australian politics.

  18. Helen Browne

    June 6, 2015 at 6:03 pm

    Just wondering .Does Abbott think he is the second coming of Jesus.I would not be surprised if he does. Heaven forbid.
    We cannot go on like this.Bill Shorten and Labor please stand up and be counted.Thank you.

  19. John Hawkins

    June 6, 2015 at 8:54 pm

    If only they all read Tasmanian Times they would have been able to grasp the metal of the problem that faces Abetz and I suspect Abbott.

    Abetz should be stripped of his entitlements and made to refund his salary for the period he was sitting illegally in the Parliament.

    He would do this to anybody he found rorting the system as a right wing Minister in the Liberal Government.

    Why should he be exempt?

  20. john hayward

    June 6, 2015 at 9:55 pm

    Since coming to office, Tony has operated as one who feels he has sovereign power, unfettered by doctrines such as the separation of powers, habeas corpus, and the obligations in various international conventions. Brandis appears of the same view.

    In their extreme exceptionalism, Team Tony are not unlike the Islamic terrorists they heavily rely on to justify their curtailing of democracy.

    John Hayward

  21. Russell

    June 6, 2015 at 11:03 pm

    Re #18
    Funny how they’re all Lawyers, isn’t it?

    Yet they flaunt with the rule of the Law, including Constitutional Law.

  22. Bazabee

    June 8, 2015 at 3:47 am

    #1 Closer to home I recall that the then ALP Senator Nick Sherry also had not ended his UK citizenship before he was sworn in, when this was pointed out to him he quickly did so.
    And while my memory is foggy on this point I think that ex Senator Sue Mackay might also have had a similar problem which she was also able to resolve quickly.

    Dual citizenship cannot be held by our elected politicians there is no way, and nor should there be. If indeed Tony Abbott retains dual citizenship he should not be sitting as a member of Parliament let alone be the Prime Minister of this country. If other Federal members were forced to prove that they had given up the citizenship of their birth country, and clearly this is the case, then so must Tony Abbott and he must explain why he hasn’t done so in the past. The PM is not above the law.

  23. bazabee

    June 8, 2015 at 2:25 pm

    #19 If only Toxic Tony did think he was the second coming what a wonderful day it would be for Australia when he attempted to walk on water. As a sometime resident of the ACT I would like to suggest a quick jog across Lake Burley Griffin sometime between now and the next Federal election its a day out I wouldn’t miss for quids maybe it could be part of this year’s Floriade.

  24. Peter Bright

    June 8, 2015 at 5:56 pm

    Russell at #22 says [i]”Funny how they’re all Lawyers, isn’t it?

    “Yet they flaunt with the rule of the Law, including Constitutional Law”[/i]

    Hmmn. From the King James Version of the Bible at Luke 11:46 …

    [i]”And (Jesus) said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.[/i]

    Hmmn. Apt?

  25. Simon Warriner

    June 8, 2015 at 8:06 pm

    re 22, Anyone who has read Evan Whittons book on the history of the English legal system would find no surprise in the fact.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top