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

Eric Abetz MUST resign

*Pic: Eric Abetz letter …

image
Pic: of Eric Abetz from his website

First published August 15

At the request of my legal team, Erich Abetz was forced to supply various documents to support my case before the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns.

In addition, and of his own volition two days before the hearing, Abetz produced a Verzictsurkunde Certificate dated 25 January 2010 and issued on 9 Mar 2010 showing that on that date Abetz received from the German Government its acceptance of the renunciation of his German Citizenship as he had requested.

“Erich Abetz has at the moment this certificate was issued lost German citizenship through renunciation”. (Download below)

This document is page 8 of the 9 pages translated by Leopold Cruis…..? The other 8 pages should contain the reasoning behind the issuing of the document and these must be submitted to Parliament as requested by Senator Peter Whish-Wilson.

An individual elector can only contest a person’s election before the High Court within a period of 30 days from the date of the ballot, and only for that specific election.

The production of his Renunciation Certificate forced me to withdraw my case because Abetz was no longer a German citizen from 10 March 2010, and was therefore eligible to hold a seat in the Australian Parliament for the term commencing July 2011.

As Abetz could not renounce a citizenship he did not have, he sat illegally in the Senate from 1994 until the end of his term in 2011 – unless he relied on other evidence.

Abetz relied on his so-called German Citizenship letter sent on 26th November 1992, a carbon copy of which Abetz was forced, under duress, to produce to the High Court.

I have never seen this document but I suggest that it was created by Abetz after his election to a casual vacancy in 1994 after his failure at the ballot box in 1993.

Why is this 1992 letter so odd that it causes me to make this statement?

Abetz is a University trained lawyer and barrister.

The document is dated the day after the Sykes v Cleary case, thereby giving a reason for its creation – if investigated by any person such as myself!

Yet in this important matter Abetz purports to have written a letter to an Embassy of a divided nation (Unified in 1990) giving no return street number or street address and expecting it to be delivered. (Download below)

The correct address and title of the Embassy is The Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, 119 Empire Circuit, Yarralumla, ACT 2600.

He does not offer confirmation of his identity with a copy of his birth certificate or enclose any other confirmation of identity.

He gives an incorrect Christian name.

His name in the German Embassy files and on his birth certificate is Erich.

He does not attach any evidence of when or how he acquired Australian Citizenship.

He does not attach a copy of his certificate regarding his Affirmation or Oath of Allegiance to Australia. (Download below)

He states the wrong year for his citizenship as 1975 when in fact it’s 1974.

He does not return his German passport as kept when he was granted his certificate of Australian Citizenship on 5 Dec 1974. (Download below)

How could the Embassy reply if Abetz gives no sender’s address?

Had this letter actually been sent in November 1992, Abetz would have had 14 months to obtain a reply before his February 1994 election to a casual vacancy in the Senate.

The West German Government would have requested these documents to process his request and Abetz would have supplied them.

This is not evident.

The Germans, always ruthlessly efficient, would in a matter so important have certainly replied – particularly with the mention by Abetz of the High Court within the context of the letter.

No reply and no further correspondence suggest that this letter to the German Embassy is fraudulent by virtue of being created after the event in a seemingly slapdash attempt by Abetz to muddy the waters and cover his tracks.

I contend that Abetz sat knowingly and fraudulently in the Senate from 1994 until 2010 when I forced him to legally renounce his citizenship to the High Court.

He then sat on illegally until the end of his term in 2011 – and those in power colluded and did nothing.

As a lawyer Abetz knew that the 1992 document would not meet the foreshadowed test case in the High Court, and so he was forced to legally renounce his citizenship in 2010.

His big mistake was to state to Sue Neales that he had the evidence and would provide the 1992 document to the Mercury – but he never did.

This gave me the required insight as to its existence and enabled me to ask for its production before the High Court.

Subsequent to the hearing Abetz has always relied on his Citizenship documents of 1974 – with nary a mention of this suspect document.

It could be asked (a) why three Presidents of the Senate have consistently refused to act and (b) where has the Chief Law Officer the Attorney General been throughout this long and difficult saga?

The Senate is not a Club and it is certainly not peopled by Gentlemen.

I thank Senator Peter Whish-Wilson for asking those questions and I demand an answer of my elected representative, Senator Erich Abetz, to his peers in the Senate.

All the downloadable documents need to be tabled before the Senate by Senator Peter Whish-Wilson to allow for public debate on this important and possibly fraudulent matter, and if the Senate determines that Senator Erich Abetz sat illegally and fraudulently in their midst from 1994 until 2011 he should be forced to resign and be stripped of his entitlements – as suggested by the Attorney General, Senator Brandis, in the case of the two recently resigned Green Senators: Sky, HERE: Brandis unsympathetic towards Scott Ludlam

Download …

Abetz_docs_20_Oct_2010.pdf

Attachments_1-7.pdf

*John Hawkins was born and educated in England. He has lived in Tasmania for 13 years. He is the author of “Australian Silver 1800–1900” and “Thomas Cole and Victorian Clockmaking” and “The Hawkins Zoomorphic Collection” as well as “The Al Tajir Collection of Silver and Gold” and nearly 100 articles on the Australian Decorative Arts. He is a Past President and Life Member of The Australian Art & Antique Dealers Association. John has lived in Australia for 50 years and is 75 this year. In two of the world’s longest endurance marathons and in the only teams to ever complete these two events, he drove his four-in-hand team from Melbourne to Sydney in 1985 and from Sydney to Brisbane in 1988.

image
Comment 11, Ole Man a Ross

image
Comment 60 …

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
89 Comments

89 Comments

  1. John Hawkins

    November 3, 2017 at 7:11 am

    The Ace of Trumps is collusion between Parry as President of the Senate and Abetz over the Whish-Wilson request for Abetz to table his citizenship documents before the Senate.

    Parry has gone.

    Abetz after the Alberici interview on Lateline will go.

    The Embalmer from Burnie and the Hun from Hobart are both in the same boat having sat illegally in the Senate.

    They colluded to protect themselves from Whish-Wilson.

    Whereto from here and will this endemic corruption over due process by Liberal pollies bring down their Government?

    Whish-Wilson must now raise the matter again in the Senate and expose these rodents for what they are.

  2. TGC

    September 1, 2017 at 1:00 am

    #87 Tony Windsor- now there’s a flirt!

  3. John Hawkins

    August 30, 2017 at 1:30 am

    Have Faith TGC.

    We can all look forward to the entertainment factor of a High Court referral provided free of charge by your beloved Liberals in order to protect their slim majority.

    The poor old Nationals and our very own Deputy PM may well be crucified and the government tortured as the disaster explodes.

    Lots of new precedents, the ground rules will change, the fun is only just beginning.

    TT with ten years of practice over Abetz is at the cutting edge of this citizenship story and it has a well briefed readership.

    October will be great fun. Thank god for Tony Windsor.

    Hang in their Cowell – you will not be disappointed.

  4. TGC

    August 30, 2017 at 12:27 am

    #84 Is this a promise?…”I still have(only) one more card to play, a card I consider to be the ace of trumps.”
    Hope so-be good to see the TT deck cleared of this game.

  5. Jon SUmby

    August 26, 2017 at 12:36 am

    No. 84, John,

    Good luck and the best of British!

    I hope to read about it in the fullness of time 🙂

  6. John Hawkins

    August 26, 2017 at 12:01 am

    Dear Jon

    Thankyou for that.

    I still have one more card to play, a card I consider to be the ace of trumps.

    More of this later.

  7. Jon Sumby

    August 25, 2017 at 10:40 pm

    con’t/

    This renunciation process also means that renunciation and the loss of citizenship is decoupled. A person loses their German citizenship automatically when they acquire a foreign citizenship but they can formally renounce at any time (just not before they acquire foreign citizenship).

    So why did he renounce in 2010?

    This goes to the first limb of Section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution which concerns possible allegiances or duties owed to foreign powers. This has been interpreted by the courts to mean that a elected politician must have taken ‘reasonable steps’ to renounce foreign status.

    It could be argued that Abetz did take that reasonable step when he applied for Australian citizenship as that directly resulted in loss of German citizenship. But equally it could be argued that he took no ‘reasonable steps’ as he didn’t have to do anything, the loss of German citizenship is automatic and he is a passive player in this process.

    Possibly to address this passive, non-active, role in the process, in 1992, he sent a declaration of renunciation to the German Embassy in Australia. It is a shoddy document, with bad grammar, spelling mistakes, and errors of fact.

    It also could be argued that this letter was not a reasonable step as it was a) unsigned – although the document you posted is apparently a carbon copy of the one he sent so it need not have been signed; and b) it is informal, Germany could not act on it and need not respond to it. To renounce you actually have to fill out and submit forms and pay application fees.

    It is possible Abetz considered his 1992 letter as unsound and unsafe, so he went through the formal process and acquired an official certificate of renunciation to remove all doubt about his status.

    So why is it dated to 2010? Well, it could not be backdated to 1974 because he did not apply then. Since loss of citizenship is disconnected with official recognition of renunciation he can apply at any time and the certificate would be simply dated to that time, i.e. 2010.

    There is no implication that Abetz held any form of German citizenship after 1974 and prior to 2010. This would only be possible if he applied for either retention or repatriation of his German citizenship and there is no evidence for either.

  8. Jon Sumby

    August 25, 2017 at 10:35 pm

    No. 81, John,

    The first sentence of Section 25 of German nationality law is, A German shall lose his or her citizenship upon acquiring a foreign citizenship.

    I focus on the phrase, ‘upon acquiring’, as the entirety of Section 25 turns on it. It is an active phrase. ‘Upon’is a more formal word for ‘on’. The choice of ‘acquiring’ is interesting as there are many other words that could be used; getting, gaining, citizenship; becoming, granted, citizenship etc.

    I think the German translators used ‘acquiring’ to carry a meaning close to the original German word. I take that sense to be one of possession or obtaining a physical thing. The other words like ‘becoming’ or ‘gaining’ are more abstract. Therefore I think that the automatic loss of German citizenship occurs the moment a person first holds or recieves their new citizenship certificate, because that is a physical object demonstrating their citizenship.

    By this meaning, Abetz’s German citizenship began it’s death throes the moment he handed in his application for Australian citizenship and it died the moment Abetz held his Australian citizenship certificate.

    There are four ways he could have retained or regained his German citizenship:

    1. There may have been an administrative error and his Australian citizenship may have never be properly noted by Germany which would mean that as far as Germany was concerned he remained a citizen. However, that is trivial to resolve.

    2. At the time he applied for Australian citizenship, he could have also applied to retain his German citizenship. By German law he would have to apply for retention after applying for Australian citizenship but before he acquired Australian citizenship. I presume that is a transitional period and his German citizenship would thus be held in abeyance until a decision made. To do this he would have had to apply, fill in forms, provide statements and supporting material about the reasons to retain citizenship, and pay the application/processing fee.

    There is no known evidence that he did that.

    3. Former German citizens can apply for repatriation and to regain their German citizenship. Again, he would have had to supply statements and reasons for this, fill in forms, and pay processing fees. Germany does prefer that a person applying for repatriation also renounces their foreign citizenship but it is possible to retain that on a case by case basis.

    There is no known evidence that he did that either.

    4. Amendment 116 of the nationality Act allows for ethnic Germans and German Jews, and their descendants, to apply for repatriation. But this only applies to people who lost citizenship during the Third Reich period, and does not apply to Abetz.

    You ask about renunciation. As I understand it, it goes like this. A nation can strip a person of their citizenship, that is a power governments have. Conversely, in many countries a citizen has personal agency and can also renounce their citizenship.

    German law prohibits a person renouncing if they have no other citizenship, this prevents them becoming a ‘stateless person’. To renounce a person must first become a foreign citizen but under German law this means they have already automatically lost German citizenship.

    It sounds paradoxical but it works. What it means is that the German legislators retained a mechanism for their citizens to retain agency and make a public declaration that they no longer wish to be German citizens for either personal or political reasons. It begins with the person making a declaration of renunciation in writing, it can be as simple as this:

    Oi! Germany! Ink pink you stink, I declare I don’t wanna be a citizen of you no more.

  9. John Hawkins

    August 24, 2017 at 1:34 am

    Garry #79 Jon #80

    Thankyou for your contributions.

    Abetz is a lawyer and presumably took advice the best professional legal advice available having noted my announcement that after the 2010 election should he be elected I would be taking him to the High Court as a dual national.

    If his case was as strong as you suggest why did he obtain a Renuciation Certificate from the German Government?

    He was represented by the former Solicitor General David Bennett AC QC whose wife was a judge in the Federal Court of Australia.

    Abetz could have run the case for weeks and cost me a great deal of money using the arguments you have put forward and won his case without renunciation.

    The fact is he did not.

    You cannot renounce a citizenship you do not have.

    My argument has always been that by the act of renunciation Abetz confirmed his dual nationality.

    There is more to this than meets the eye as Abetz is no fool.

    Peter Whish -Wilson can find out by asking the Senate to put Abetz before the High Court.

    Will Brandis let him?

    That is the question.

  10. Jon Sumby

    August 23, 2017 at 11:12 pm

    No. 79, Garry,
    Conscription? No way. The German Basic Law at that time (Section 12a) put the age of conscription at 18. Abetz was 16 when he naturalised as Australian. He owed no military service to Germany, besides, Germany could not compel German citizens to return from overseas to do military service.

    As for the letter, I think Abetz wrote that to make his status clearer and prevent any attempt of attack along ‘allegiance’ as was the case in Sykes v. Cleary.

    I think the letter was him being very cautious as it is abundantly clear that he has never been a dual citizen and lost his German citizenship in 1974.

  11. garrystannus@hotmail.com

    August 23, 2017 at 9:25 pm

    Jon Sumby (#78): Thanks for your reply, and sorry that I’ve not been able to acknowledge it sooner. Yes, I accept that the
    [5Dec1974 Australian notification to the German Embassy (Here)] puts the matter -as far as I’m concerned – beyond ordinary doubt. ‘All things being equal’, Eric Abetz was no longer a German citizen by the end of 1974.

    There will always be a few questions which could resist this conclusion. One that I examined, was whether Eric Abetz owed the German Republic military service (conscription into the armed services or civilian alternative). I didn’t think this question had much currency, for a couple of reasons which I could expand on, but I don’t think it’s necessary to do so.

    An interesting question to consider, is whether during the 1970s and 1980s, Eric Abetz was aware that he had become ‘no longer a German’. John (Hawkins) had posited that the ‘carbon copy’ letter of renunciation (1992) might be an after-the-event fake. He could be correct… if Mr Abetz (thinking perhaps or erroneously that he was still a German citizen after 1974 and more to the point, still after his entry into Parliament in 1994) … if Mr Abetz had anachronistically created a supposëd carbon-copy, backdated a couple of years so that his entry into the Senate would look legitimate, then John Hawkins has got him. Not, in this hypothetical scenario, not just for being invalidly admitted to the Senate (invalidly on account of his dual citizenship), but for having, as John Hawkins has suggested, for having created a false document.

    I’m sorry that succinctness is not one of my attributes.

    On the other hand, that carbon copy of the 1992 letter might be authentic. Eric Abetz might indeed have written it (had it typed and sent) out of extra caution following that Sykes v Cleary case. I don’t like Eric Abetz’s politics, I don’t like his Liberal political party … ra-dee-ra-dee-ra, but I think that from those things that I’ve been able to consider e.g., from the documentation that John Hawkins has published, Eric Abetz’s entry into the Senate was probably not in breach of our Constitution.

  12. Jon Sumby

    August 22, 2017 at 2:16 pm

    No. 76 & 77,

    Garry,
    As far as I can tell it is operational law – loss of citizenship automatically flows from gaining foreign citizenship. Consider Barnaby Joyce; he was automatically a NZ citizen by descent. The New Zealand government did not have to know anything, even the fact of his existence.

    The loss of German citizenship is automatic on gaining a foreign citizenship; that is plain in numerous parts of the Nationality Act. The time the German government becomes aware is only if the person applies to the government to retain their German citizenship through the retention process.

    Section 25. (1) A German shall lose his or her citizenship upon acquiring a foreign citizenship

    As you noted; Citizenship shall not be lost by any person who, prior to acquiring foreign citizenship following their application for the same, received written approval from their competent authority for retention of their citizenship.

    However, going to this part your question, ‘is the German citizenship lost from the time that the German authorities become aware of the person’s second citizenship?, one of the letters given by John H. is a letter from the Australian government to the First Secretary of the German Embassy in Canberra notifying them that Abetz became an Australian citizen on the 3 December 1974.

    The letter is dated 5th December 1974, therefore the German authorities were aware of his Australian citizenship from that time.

    John,
    Interesting point, however, I would think that Abetz lost German citizenship by gaining Australian citizenship. This happened first and as German law states; (1) A German shall lose his or her citizenship upon acquiring a foreign citizenship where such acquisition results from an application filed by the German concerned… Abetz did submit and sign his own application for Australian citizenship. He became an Australian citizen on 3rd of December 1974 and the German Embassy in Canberra was formally notified of this citizenship in a letter dated 5th December, 1974.

    If he retained German citizenship he would also have to take action; (2) Citizenship shall not be lost by any person who, prior to acquiring foreign citizenship following their application for the same, received written approval from their competent authority for retention of their citizenship. Where an applicant is ordinarily resident abroad, the German diplomatic mission abroad shall be consulted in this connection. The public and private interests shall be weighed up in reaching the decision on an application pursuant to sentence 1. With regard to an applicant who is ordinarily resident abroad, special consideration shall be accorded to the question of whether he or she is able to furnish credible evidence of continuing ties with Germany.

    The renunciation certificate does not have weight unless Abetz did successfully apply to the German government to retain his German citizenship because otherwise, by law, he lost his German citizenship on taking Australian citizenship.

  13. John Hawkins

    August 22, 2017 at 11:58 am

    Thankyou Garry # 41,42 and 71 and Jon # 54 and 75.

    This, as you have both so eloquently and eruditely stated, is a somewhat complex matter.

    A matter which is greatly simplified by the existence of the Abetz Renunciation Certificate of 2010.

    You cannot renounce what you do not have!

    Abetz may have got away with doing nothing in 2010 but he was before the High Court and your arguments would have been put before the Court and seemingly this was a risk Abetz was not prepared to take.

    Abetz should still be asked all these questions by his peers in the Senate relating to his sitting as a Senator during the period 1994 – 2010, questions that remain unanswered before the High Court.

    A proper determination over his behaviour and eligibility to sit from 1994 to 2010 can then be evaluated as requested of him in his absence by Senator Whish – Wilson.

    Far be it from me or any of us to prejudge the outcome without the evidence, much of which is still, I suggest, unseen in the hands of Abetz.

    Abetz is a lawyer and presumably he could not persuade the Germans to give him an all clear letter over the tangled web of his citizenship.

    This resulted in the unequivocal Renunciation Certificate.

    The evidence for this prior evaluation resulting in the Renunciation Certificate is in the hands of Abetz and should now be placed before the Senate.

    Suffice it to say that Abetz should bless me for hauling him before the High Court for as stated in my advertisement, up on TT for the past seven years, he can now legally take his seat in the Senate while all around him is mayhem.

  14. garrystannus@hotmail.com

    August 22, 2017 at 11:53 am

    Jon (#75): it seems to me that Germans can have dual citizenship. Have a look at
    Section 25(2) [Here]:

    (2) Citizenship shall not be lost by any person who, prior to acquiring foreign citizenship following their application for the same, received written approval from their competent authority for retention of their citizenship. Where an applicant is ordinarily resident abroad, the German diplomatic mission abroad shall be consulted in this connection. The public and private interests shall be weighed up in reaching the decision on an application pursuant to sentence 1. With regard to an applicant who is ordinarily resident abroad, special consideration shall be accorded to the question of whether he or she is able to furnish credible evidence of continuing ties with Germany.

    On a different matter, when I asked (#42) to learn more about the mechanism of ‘automatic loss’ of German citizenship upon taking certain other citizenship without prior official approval,I was wanting to know things such as … does the automatic loss of that citizenship occur from the moment of taking other such citizenship, or is the German citizenship lost from the time that the German authorities become aware of the person’s second citizenship?

    Those two questions potentially involve 1974, or 1992 or even 2010.

  15. Jon Sumby

    August 22, 2017 at 2:31 am

    No. 71, Garry,

    Yes I relied on the official German government translation of their Nationality Act. There is something interesting here as well.

    The question is can a German hold dual nationality?

    If you look at Section 29 [Declaration], it states that:
    (3) If the German pursuant to subsection 1 declares a wish to retain German citizenship, he or she shall be obliged to furnish proof that he or she has given up or lost the foreign citizenship. If the loss of the foreign citizenship does not go into effect within two years of notification of the requirement to declare pursuant to subsection 5, German citizenship shall be lost, unless pursuant to subsection 1 the German received prior written approval from the competent authority to retain German citizenship (retention approval). The application for retention approval, including as a precautionary measure, may only be filed within one year of notification of the requirement to declare pursuant to subsection 5. The loss of German citizenship shall not take effect until the rejection of the application becomes legally valid. The possibility of provisional legal redress pursuant to Section 123 of the Code of Administrative Procedure shall remain unaffected.’

    Section 1(2) states:
    (1) The following persons are required to declare whether they wish to retain their German or foreign citizenship:

    1. persons who have acquired German citizenship pursuant to Section 4 (3) or Section 40b,

    2. persons who did not grow up in Germany in accordance with subsection 1 a,

    1a states:
    A German as defined in subsection 1 shall be regarded as having grown up in Germany if, by his or her 21st birthday, he or she

    1. has normally resided in Germany for eight years,

    2. has attended school in Germany for six years, or

    3. has completed school or occupational training in Germany.

    Abetz does not fulfill those categories in 1a so he would have to declare his desire to retain a German citizenship.

    He would have had to apply to retain their German citizenship by doing this; ‘furnish proof that he or she has given up or lost the foreign citizenship

    This seems to indicate that dual nationality is not usually possible under German law.

    But it is, as described in part 4:
    The retention approval pursuant to subsection 3 shall be granted where renunciation or loss of the foreign citizenship is not possible or cannot reasonably be expected or where acceptance of multiple citizenship would be required in case of naturalization in accordance with Section 12.

    So by what process could a German citizen also be a duel national of Australia?

    The process is described at this website: http://engl.doppeltestaatsbuergerschaft.com.au

    The pathway to the second passport

    Many Germans, who have been living in Australia for some time, may consider becoming an Australian citizen. And they may be encouraged by the fact that Australian citizenship law in general does not pose many hurdles to obtain dual or multiple citizenship. However, rushing to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to apply for the Australian citizenship may end up to be a regrettable move towards integration for a German. This because according to the German Law on Citizenship anybody who applies for the grant of a foreign citizenship principally risks loosing the German citizenship (exemptions apply). To avoid the loss of the German citizenship one must principally have received a certificate of retention of the German citizenship (Beibehaltungsurkunde) prior to naturalization, grant of the foreign citizenship respectively. This certificate represents a permit to retain the German citizenship (Genehmigung zur Beibehaltung der Deutschen Staatsangehoerigkeit) and is issued by the Federal Office of Administration (Bundesverwaltungsamt) in Cologne. It needs to be applied for providing reasons for becoming an Australian as well as for retaining the German citizenship, namely ongoing links to Germany.

    What this means is that Abetz needed to take active direct steps to retain his German citizenship; by applying, providing documents, and giving reasons for his wish to remain German. The decision rests with the German government as stated in part 6:
    The continuation or loss of German citizenship in accordance with this provision shall be determined ex officio. The Federal Ministry of the Interior may, by ordinance with the consent of the Bundesrat, issue provisions regulating the procedure to determine the continuation or loss of German citizenship.

    Unless documentary evidence can be found that he did take these steps, at the age of 16, one can presume that his German citizenship was extinguished decades ago. The 3rd of December 1974, to be precise.

    The rules written in section 1a still apply as this article about amendments to the Nationality Act in 2014 explains:
    http://www.dw.com/en/dual-citizenship-law-takes-effect-in-germany/a-18143002

  16. MjF

    August 21, 2017 at 11:51 pm

    &7o;
    Keep up hawk, we’ve moved. It’s Ok, you’re cordially invited.

  17. Lynne Newington

    August 21, 2017 at 11:27 pm

    @71. “He also claimed that he had provided John (Hawkins) [‘the petitioner’] with that letter of renunciation. John seems to have rejected this claim. Yet the ‘carbon copy’ has been posted here, on Tasmanian Times, and I guess that it wasn’t Eric, but that it was John who supplied it to our Editor.John has now suggested that this carbon copy is possibly a fake, written after Eric Abetz entered the Senate”.

    You’re not trying to undermine him are you….

  18. William Boeder

    August 21, 2017 at 10:11 pm

    #69. MJF with as much the same degree of respect that you accord to my good self, no you have not debunked the element of suspicion toward the Abetz involved and still very likely inveigled-in Ta Ann actual rate of costs per tonne delivered.
    So over and above the 2 most respected and trusted sources of fact available in this State, I refer here to Mr Pete Godfrey and Mr John Hawkins who have entered into this matter with their generous release of information and or affirmation of indisputable facts, it would be an unforgivable action for any individual not to accept the truth on record presented by each of these foremost respected persons.

    (I note you have failed to mention any word in response related to the FPA compliancy requirements of engagement by the Van Dieman’s Land Company, as indeed applicable to the 7000 hectares of Ancient and HCV forest clearance.)

    Now MJF I accept that you too are honour bound in delivering fact rather than fiction, if you could please provide your qualified narrative in response to the 2 matters as referred to below?

    1. The actual profit percentage built into the costs paid out by Ta Ann that provides its profit to the State.
    2. The 7000 hectare forest clearance subjected to the FPA approved forestry plans with their separate forestry field assessment documents attached thereto.

    Until these matters are satisfied you have are yet to qualify your statements related to the profits provided by the Ta Ann delivered payment of profits to the State revenues.
    Thanks again. MJF if you please.

  19. garrystannus@hotmail.com

    August 21, 2017 at 9:37 pm

    Jon Sumby (#54) has pretty much made my point (#41, #42). He posted material which seems drawn from an official German translation of the German Nationality Act 1913, (last amended at 2014?) … https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_rustag/englisch_rustag.html.

    The original act [translated] can be viewed here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2212311. I have looked at a couple of potential objections to the ‘automatic loss of German citizenship’ scenario, but nothing came of them – they are not (in my opinion) worth going into any further.

    Eric Abetz, in one of his blogs/media releases, referred earlier this month to this concept of ‘automatic loss of German citizenship’. He also claimed that he had provided John (Hawkins) [‘the petitioner’] with that letter of renunciation. John seems to have rejected this claim. Yet the ‘carbon copy’ has been posted here, on Tasmanian Times, and I guess that it wasn’t Eric, but that it was John who supplied it to our Editor. John has now suggested that this carbon copy is possibly a fake, written after Eric Abetz entered the Senate, and crafted to appear as a simple contemporaneous response to the then High Court Sykes v Cleary decision.

    ‘Where to from here…? or ‘Quo vadis’ as once we might have asked.

  20. John hawkins

    August 21, 2017 at 8:08 pm

    MJF
    No 69

    Retired hurt would be a closer to the mark.

  21. MJF

    August 21, 2017 at 6:12 pm

    #68
    Off topic long enough with respect to the Abetzian followers.
    I’ll respond on tedious teds forestry economics Bullshitoreum story. If you would be kind enough to transfer with me.

    But as we move across consider this – I have debunked your unsubstantiated fib in regards to selling logs at a loss to ta Ann without too much of an effort.

  22. William Boeder

    August 21, 2017 at 5:32 pm

    Further to the question posed by mJf, thank you Pete Godfrey and John Hawkins for aiding my desire for establishing the insufficiencies of prices charged to Ta Ann for their on-site delivered primary timber products, then to my suspicions, then of my depiction toward the failed adequacy of the pricing of timbered goods delivered to the Ta Ann receiving yards, wherein I had averred to in a prior comment which I deemed to be factually sufficient to demonstrate some huge discount that enabled Forestry Tasmania to sit back on their shiny chairs and continue to request additional annual funding.
    Let us not forget that among the persons in league with Ta Ann is this very same Senator that features above in this article.
    Apparently this State funding of a particular GBE (Forestry Tasmania) on so regular a basis had finally been legislatively permitted via a statute variation to effectively make money backwards.
    Then that the annual ritual of simply demanding more money each year in order to keep the front door open, mostly for the reason to let the management boys slip in by the front door instead of the sneaky way through the back alley entrance.

    From an economical stand point the loafers and laughers club that consisted of the directors board and the management personnel of this GBE (yes those same persons whose hands would begin to tremble when the time came around for payment of their emoluments at each corresponding period) considering how little effort was required both mentally and physically from those elitist humbugs to just keep the F/T system rolling.
    Now Mjf Given your inner circle knowledge of what went down with the inner doings of Forestry Tasmania for so many years, do you know whatever happened to the 7000 hectares of Old Growth Forest timber during 2010 through to 2011 or even later, that was put to the saw under the management of Evan Rolley being hired on the behalf of Miles Hampton’s directorship placement on the board of the Van Diemen’s Land company, way up in the upper corner of the North-West Coast?
    Now let me do some rough calculations, roughing out the size of a coupe containing say 30 hectares of mostly undisturbed Ancient and HCV Forests replete with their multitude of Special Species Timbers found there within, hmm’ that’s around 230 X 30 hectare coupes.
    You would know who the buyers were of all that clear-felled timber of course, you being part of the FPA Authority and or being a person employed therein.
    If you could please Mjf just to confirm your credentials and professional ethics as an FPA official, please advise me on this Tasmanian Times forum when and where are they now of the FPA logging plans submitted prior to the logging of that 7000 hectare region for those 7000 hectares during 2010 2011 or thereabouts that were clear-felled to make room for more moo-cows on the Dairy side of things for this then “New Zealand owned land-grant” Gifted from almost 200 years ago.
    Thank you MjF.

  23. Peter Godfrey

    August 21, 2017 at 4:35 pm

    Hello MJF, I dont want to go off topic too much but I have not found any prices after the dates I have given.
    They may be available, I am not aware of where.
    Seems that some figures were included in the 2012 sustainability report, maybe by mistake.
    You will note that up until 2012 that Low Grade Export peelers were priced higher than TaAnn were paying. A bit of an oddity in concerns to their contract. I am guessing that in 2012 the Chinese found out that they did not have to pay more than Ta Ann for lower grade logs.
    I dont have any more recent information. Maybe John Lawrence would be able to dig it up?

  24. Jon Sumby

    August 21, 2017 at 2:46 pm

    No. 62,

    Hi John,

    I reply to your points with my suggestions in italics.

    1. If you look at my attachment #5 above you will see that the issuing officer did not manage to collect Abetz’s German passport to return to the Embassy as it was then in the possession of Abetz.

    Why was this specifically mentioned?
    This letter (letter T.74) is just a functional bureaucratic notice. Around 80,000 people become Australian citizens each year. Is it a requirement for the public service to collect, sort, and deliver foreign passports back to the relevant consulates and embassies? When I became a citizen nothing about my passport was mentioned and I didn’t hand it over.

    What is the importance of this notation?
    Not much, I think it is a pro forma notation.

    Did Abetz refuse to hand it over?
    Are they collected by Government officials at citizenship ceremonies?

    Did he subsequently use it for travel purposes in Europe?
    Who knows. German passports are valid for 10 years. Assuming that he zipped down to the German consulate and got a passport the day before he became an Australian citizen, his German passport would have expired on the 2nd of December 1984.

    Where is it now?
    More importantly, where was it then? Abetz applied for Australian citizenship at the earliest possible legal age; 16. There is a reason why the handwriting on his application form has a child-like quality. At the age of 16 he would either be travelling on his parent’s passport or a child’s passport (Kinderreisepass).

    When was it cancelled, and is it the reason for the 2010 renunciation certificate?
    A Kinderreisepass expires in 6 years and an adult passport in 10, therefore his passport (if he had one) would have expired in 1980 or 1984, that is over 30 years ago when Abetz would have been about 26 years old.

    2.Why did Abetz deny ever having owned a German passport?
    Did he? I have no idea, but it is possible that at the age of three he travelled to Australia on his parent’s passport. Since he became an Australian citizen as soon as he possibly could, he may never actually had a German passport of any type issued to him.

    3.Why did the Germans never reply to the 1992 Abetz letter?
    They did not have to. Can you imagine the public service time and expense in replying to such matters? His letter was a simple declaration of renunciation. No reply needed, it simply gets filed.

    Was it because it was never sent?
    I will not speculate on an allegation.

    4.Most importantly why did the Embassy not accept the copy of the 1992 letter submitted as evidence to the High Court and reply stating he was no longer a German citizen.
    That is speculation and attribution and as I have said, no reply is necessary for a declaration of renunciation.

    5.When Abetz applied in 2010 to clarify the matter presumably he sent his Australian citizenship docs.

    Why then, if this is all that is required, did the Embassy not give him a letter saying he did not have to worry for he was not a German and had not been since 1974?
    Again, bureaucracy. Legally a person’s German citizenship ends when a foreign citizenship is acquired but a person can renounce German citizenship at any time that suits them. Simply fill in a form, pay the fee and the process produces a renunciation certificate independent of the legal situation.

    The caveat on this is that German law prevents a person from becoming stateless; a person can only renounce German citizenship if they are already a citizen of some other country.

    6. They must have told him the only way out of the hole he was in was to renounce his citizenship properly and they would provide the documentation and give him the requisite certificate.
    What hole? He was no longer a German citizen as of the 3rd of December 1974. After that date he was free to declare and renounce his non-citizen status to the world and have that status confirmed by Germany at any time.

    It took getting him to the High Court to prove the fraud.
    No comment.

    To sum up: Abetz arrived as an immigrant baby at the age of three. He grew up in Tasmania, in Margate. At the earliest possible legal age, at the age of sixteen, he took citizenship of the only country he had ever experienced and memorably lived in. By law, at the age of 16, he ceased being a German citizen – a Germany he would have only known about from stories and reminiscences told to him by his parents and relatives.

  25. Lynne Newington

    August 21, 2017 at 1:44 pm

    “the thugs sent to his door to warn him off his crusade against Abetz”….

    Oh Lord it sounds like the gestapo!

    62. With all the history I’ve travelled through in relation to the Jews and dispersement of others connected to them after the war, it’s beginning to sound a little familiar for me.

  26. MJF

    August 21, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    #62
    Pete, so presumably the high grade domestic peelers are the ta Ann product and prices are per tonne.

    I wonder where at in 2017/18 ?

    @$62.00/T in 2011/12 there was surely a lot of close wood delivered that year.

    I’d estimate averaged costs then at bush/load $20, cartage $15, O/H’s $5, roading $5, regeneration $3, leaves $14 stumpage in round numbers. Not a huge margin but not sold “well below the cost of supply” as Boeder states (in my opinion of course)

    Aren’t these MD prices supposedly shrouded in secrecy ?

    Or is that only after 2011/12 ?

    #60 Hawkins
    Are you serious ?
    You don’t need me to try to make the clique look stupid.
    You seem such a sensible fellow generally too. And modest as well. Take a break.

    How come P Godfrey has accessed information that you can’t ?

  27. John Hawkins

    August 21, 2017 at 1:10 pm

    #61

    Thankyou for that Peter but what is the Commercial in confidence price paid by Ta ann?

  28. John Hawkins

    August 21, 2017 at 12:00 pm

    Jon Sumby #54

    There are several problems here …

    1. If you look at my attachment #5 above you will see that the issuing officer did not manage to collect Abetz’s German passport to return to the Embassy as it was then in the possession of Abetz.

    Why was this specifically mentioned? What is the importance of this notation?

    Did Abetz refuse to hand it over?

    Did he subsequently use it for travel purposes in Europe?

    Where is it now?

    When was it cancelled, and is it the reason for the 2010 renunciation certificate?

    2.Why did Abetz deny ever having owned a German passport?

    3.Why did the Germans never reply to the 1992 Abetz letter?

    Was it because it was never sent?

    4.Most importantly why did the Embassy not accept the copy of the 1992 letter submitted as evidence to the High Court and reply stating he was no longer a German citizen.

    5.When Abetz applied in 2010 to clarify the matter presumably he sent his Australian citizenship docs.

    Why then, if this is all that is required, did the Embassy not give him a letter saying he did not have to worry for he was not a German and had not been since 1974?

    6. They must have told him the only way out of the hole he was in was to renounce his citizenship properly and they would provide the documentation and give him the requisite certificate.

    It took getting him to the High Court to prove the fraud.

    You will note that Shorten is trying the same trick. The 30 days are up and he cannot be challenged by an individual.

    What is the date on his UK docs?

    Why will he not release them?

    What has he got to gain by not releasing them?

    He has far more to lose.

    Always remember we are dealing with tricky people with no qualifications who have a highly paid job to protect.

  29. Peter Godfrey

    August 21, 2017 at 11:45 am

    Forestry Tasmania Returns on Peeler Logs

    2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
    Low Grade Export Peelers $79.00 $80.00 $83.00 $85.00 $40.00

    High Grade Domestic Peelers $67.00 $68.00 $64.27 $60.00 $62.00

    Prices are Mill Door landed prices, for export are at wharf prices.

    Prices from Appendix 2 Stewardship Report 2012

  30. John Hawkins

    August 21, 2017 at 10:44 am

    Dear Editor.

    Please find reply regarding the protection of mill door prices to Ta Ann as requested by MJF comment #48

    This extract has been taken from my submission protected under Parliamentary privilege since its placement before the House of Reps by Andrew Wilkie.

    It is an easy question to ask Martin J Fitch for you know and I know that this key information is protected under Commercial in Confidence blockers.

    It is a state secret as a result no answer will be forthcoming as this would bring down the government.

    This loss making contract is the key to the bankruptcy of Forestry Tasmania and its name change!

    Fitch do not try to make us look stupid read my 25 page submission.

  31. William Boeder

    August 21, 2017 at 5:40 am

    Hello spikey, the basis for a ‘Commercial in Confidence’ stamp generally applies to their own as well as their taxpayer fed GBEs, toward their ruinous decisions, snafu’s on matters of State government impropriety, erroneous statements and idiotic claims (in the hope of burying their own such foolery) there is no end to the schemes and plots hidden from the people by their utilizing the ‘Commercial in Confidence’ stamp as a utility for keeping the populous of this State dumbed down from fact and reality.
    As for our dear friend Mr Fitch, I will let go of his 5% canopy coverage of eucalyptus specie dictum to enable the clear-felling of the bloody lot in any and all sized coupe.
    We must not question both the financial impracticality of the logging Stakeholder ministers and their what not ute load of experts deficient in the most rudimentary marketing skills, then of the fidelity or integrity of those who connive to keep the people distant from fact and truth as though its an unexploded bomb.
    Dare the people read in black and white of their anti-the-people-of-Tasmania government ministers and State GBEs with their media propelled obfuscating’s and craftily manipulated factums and dictums.
    As for my claim re the dead end street type of mental adequacy held by the “former right through to the current” board directors and stakeholder ministers, each are busily buzzing about in their frenetic pursuit of logging the State’s Crown Land forests and intend to continue doing so in their defining non-profitable manner.

    No point going on about the matter of profitability in any government controlled lethargic business operation, especially in the fact that this State is deeply reliant (and thereby supplicated) upon the hundreds of millions of dollars meekly begged for annual donor-ship from the big Island North of Tasmania.

  32. MJF

    August 21, 2017 at 4:22 am

    William @ 56
    Sifting through your reply. I think you’re saying you can’t substantiate previous claim but it is right ? Is that the bottom line ?

    A bit like the overloaded truck scenario……if you recall

    After review I think I preferred your accidentally deleted answer.

    Are you in contact with Hans d ? Say hi to him pls from me.

    What did you make of the tullah pioneer graveyard article recently ? Twas very interesting for me.

    #57
    Back to the non capitalised text spike.

    ‘They’ say it’s just laziness, what do you think?

  33. spikey 'no clothes' riddoch

    August 21, 2017 at 1:03 am

    #51
    classy

    common knowledge ye old loss making contracts, first i’ve heard anyone try and pretend they aren’t actually there

    please do enlighten us on the exact details, so oft shrouded in the murky waters of ‘commercial in shit creek confidence’

  34. William Boeder

    August 21, 2017 at 12:53 am

    #48. MJF. my second attempt to answer your question is far less specific to that of my accidently deleted prior response prepared to address your question.
    https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/1ef3b33d-55c7-4401-b055-1d4dd42b2e80/files/ta-ann-agreement-schedule4-smithton.pdf
    https://stors.tas.gov.au/store/exlibris1/storage/1/2012/09/27/file_1/922239.pdf
    As you may already know or soon realize when you read my first link on this matter that no printed form or electronic transmitted form of price or cost to on-site delivery of timber products arranged via Forestry Tasmania in those earlier times, has ever been available for public view. As soon thereafter began the urgent task by this State government of the day to remove all evidence of pricing and or indicative incidental information incorporated in that original 2005 MOU.
    However I had based my claim on the financial performance of this abjectly failed former State GBE and its long trail of annual financial losses incurred perhaps prior to the time of the Ta Ann entry to this State, they with their main objective being simply to fulfil the gifted volume of log supply. (Then that would later see Ta Ann receive $26 million dollars of taxpayer handed over for Jack Schitt, in their consenting to relinquish a portion of that prior gifted log supply volume.)
    Only in Tasmania could such a barrel of monkey brained politicians and Forestry Tasmania executives possibly architect such a massive ‘snafu’ all at the taxpayers expense.

    Then that only the above-referred cloister of Tasmania’s brains trust were able to witness the original 2005 Ta Ann-Forestry Tasmania MOU.
    Immediately thereafter began the urgent task by this deceivingly intent State government of the day to remove all evidence of pricing and or indicative incidental information incorporated in that original MOU.
    This above reference to the financial ineptitudes of this State government and its former forest logging agency of Forestry Tasmania (even now with the ridiculous claim of “sustainable” being jacked into the new named profitless logging entity) to this very day has continually fogged up the vision of what a responsible government is truly all about.
    By the way, good old Hansy Drielsma will be able to provide you with more specific data and is contactable through the institution of frenetic loggers that has Mark Poynter embedded therein.

  35. TGC

    August 21, 2017 at 12:47 am

    #52 So does #52 mean that due to an attack of apoplexy you accidentally deleted the mass of factual information concerning the current Ta ann milldoor price(s) payable and the delivered supply costs incurred? – oh dear, what a misfortune- maybe you can dream up some new facts?

  36. Jon Sumby

    August 21, 2017 at 12:41 am

    Allow me to add my five cents worth.

    The law that controls German citizenship is the ‘Nationality Act of 22 July 1913’.

    First a bit of history. This Act dates to 1913, but in the Third Reich years it was repealed and replaced with Reich laws. In 1945 the Reich laws were rescinded and the 1913 Act put back in place and it remains the law today, with some amendments in 1999 that do not concern us as they post-date the Abetz stuff.

    So, what does the Nationality Act of 22 July 1913 say about citizenship?

    Section 17
    [Loss of citizenship]

    (1) Citizenship shall be lost

    1. by release from citizenship (Sections 18 to 24),

    2. by acquisition of a foreign citizenship (Section 25),

    3. by renunciation (Section 26),

    4. by adoption by a foreigner (Section 27),

    5. by joining the armed forces or a comparable armed organization of a foreign state (Section 28) or

    6. by a declaration (Section 29) or

    7. by revocation of an unlawful administrative act (Section 35)’

    Point 2 of Part 1 states that citizenship is lost when another nationality is gained, it mentions ‘Section 25’ so lets trot over there and have a look:

    Section 25
    [Loss of citizenship on acquisition of a foreign citizenship following due application for the same; approval of retention of citizenship]

    (1) A German shall lose his or her citizenship upon acquiring a foreign citizenship where such acquisition results from an application filed by the German concerned or his or her legal representative, whereas the represented person shall suffer such loss only if the qualifying conditions for application for release from citizenship apply as stipulated in Section 19. The loss under sentence 1 shall not take effect if a German acquires the citizenship of another member state of the European Union, Switzerland or of a state with which the Federal Republic of Germany has signed a treaty under Section 12, sub-section 3.

    (2) Citizenship shall not be lost by any person who, prior to acquiring foreign citizenship following their application for the same, received written approval from their competent authority for retention of their citizenship. Where an applicant is ordinarily resident abroad, the German diplomatic mission abroad shall be consulted in this connection.’

    Part 1 states that a person automatically and legally is no longer a citizen of Germany ‘upon acquiring a foreign citizenship’.

    So when Abetz was granted a Certificate of Australian Citizenship on the 3rd of December 1974, he ceased to be a German citizen.

    Furthermore, let’s have a look at Part 6 of Section 17, which refers us to Section 29:

    Section 29
    [Declaration]


    (2) If the German required to declare pursuant to subsection 1 declares a wish to retain the foreign citizenship, German citizenship shall be lost when the competent authority receives the declaration.’

    The letter written by Abetz in 1992 is just that; a declaration that he wishes to be Australian. I suspect that he wrote that letter from an abundance of caution; given that he, by law, ceased to be a German citizen in 1974.

    Again, let’s look at Section 17 Part 3 which sends us to:
    Section 26
    [Renunciation]

    (1) A German may renounce his or her citizenship if he or she possesses several nationalities. Such a renunciation shall be declared in writing.

    (2) The written renunciation shall require the approval of the authority which is competent pursuant to Section 23 for issuing the certificate of release. Such approval shall be withheld if release may not be granted pursuant to Section 22; this shall not apply, however, if the person renouncing citizenship

    1. has been permanently resident abroad for at least ten years or

    2. has performed military service in one of the states whose citizenship he holds as a person liable for military service within the meaning of Section 22, no. 2.

    (3) The loss of citizenship shall take effect upon delivery of the certificate of renunciation issued by the approving authority.’

    Again the 1992 letter serves this purpose, Abetz even uses the word ‘renounced’and he has done it as per Part 1 of Section 26, ‘Such a renunciation shall be declared in writing.’

    But he didn’t need to write that letter as his Australian citizenship in 1974 ended his German citizenship.

  37. spikey 'no clothes' riddoch

    August 20, 2017 at 11:42 pm

    hey trev…reckon we’re likely to get a factual answer out of fitch?

  38. William Boeder

    August 20, 2017 at 11:33 pm

    #49. If you don’t mind TGC I request that you halt adding your drivels and snipes after my comments are published in this Tasmanian Times Forum, for they do not deliver anything meaningful other than presenting as a substance of abhorrent prolix negativity or maybe even loquaciously ridiculous spam-like nothingness that most all the persons that attend to this forum would rather not see published.
    Thank you.
    The incoming message advice that someone had responded to a comment I have previously posted to, then saw on my reading only your drivel, had me mistakenly delete all my research pages and reply to MJF as to the costs of product delivery to Ta Ann.
    I trust that other attendees will not fall victim to the action of myself, to immediately enter into a deleting frenzy to rid my computer of your compulsive desired published offensive most detestable ordure.

  39. Mjf

    August 20, 2017 at 11:00 pm

    Hi spike
    Should have known you’d emerge from the mire to defend the bromance.
    Please have a go as well if not too busy with humanitarian activities etc.
    Impress me.

  40. spikey 'no clothes' riddoch

    August 20, 2017 at 9:30 pm

    whaddya you reckon they are fitch?
    dazzle us with some data from the inner circle

    we all trust that stuff

    ha

  41. TGC

    August 20, 2017 at 8:09 pm

    #48 Good luck with getting a factual answer!

  42. MJf

    August 20, 2017 at 4:54 pm

    #47

    They are ?

    If you have a moment WB, what are the current Ta ann milldoor price(s) payable and the delivered supply costs incurred please (averaged will be fine)

    Just to validate your statement.

  43. William Boeder

    August 20, 2017 at 4:21 pm

    #27. Robin, were you to understand and accept the fact that the most extreme negativity toward Tasmania as an equal State of Australia by the averred to Senator whilst this same continually lords himself over the State’s mainstream media as well as the State’s Liberal party itself, then your bias would be without foundation.
    Please be reminded that in my opinion that this very same abhorred Senator is in lock step with the scourge of Ta Ann itself being permitted to receive delivery of forested products well below the cost of supply.

  44. Lynne Newington

    August 20, 2017 at 4:11 pm

    @44……”the thugs sent to his door to warn him off his crusade against Abetz”….

    Oh Lord it sounds like the gestapo!

  45. William Boeder

    August 20, 2017 at 4:08 pm

    I wonder if the Editor of Tasmanian Times will see fit to debar the troll like comments from one particular attendee who comments objectionably to the many other comments yet without merit nor the slightest contribution to the article matter held for discussion?

    Over to you Lindsay.

  46. Simon Warriner

    August 20, 2017 at 1:40 pm

    re 43, and despite your endless nit picking of any post you can find issue with, you have failed to notice John Hawkins talking about the thugs sent to his door to warn him off his crusade against Abetz.

    How much more personal does it get?

    Idiot.

  47. TGC

    August 20, 2017 at 12:52 pm

    #40 “That is why I am unhappy!”
    Is that all- I really thought it was something serious and deeply personal when it’s just political.

  48. garrystannus@hotmail.com

    August 20, 2017 at 12:09 pm

    …/
    Before I return to the case of Eric Abetz, I think I need to make one or two comments about the Sykes v Cleary judgement. Mason CJ (in my opinion) indicated a willingness to regard Delacretaz and Kardimitsis as ineligible to hold office, using the test as one involving a citizen who had not taken those “reasonable steps to divest himself or herself of any conflicting allegiance”. Brennan J agreed with Mason CJ, Toohey and McHugh JJ, saying that Cleary was not elected and that a special count should not be ordered. Brennan J went on to specifically deal with Delacretaz and Kardimitsis, saying that the laws of their respective countries did not exceed those of international law. Brennan’s para 7 has a quite interesting further qualification, before finding that Delacretaz and Kardimitsis had not taken steps reasonably open under the laws of each of their native countries, in order to renounce their citizenship.

    Deane J was of the differing opinion that, in the case of Cleary, that Cleary’s eligibility was to be determined by his status at the declaration of the poll and not by his status when nominating. He also offered the opinion that Kardimitsis had taken reasonable steps and that Delacretaz should not be required under our law to assert or acknowledge such a citizenship after more than 30 years of having been an Australian citizen in order to then renounce it. [Sic transit gloria!]. Dawson J agreed largely with Mason CJ, Toohey and McHugh JJ. His and earlier JJ comment seemed to find that the oath of allegiance as taken by Eric Abetz …

    I Eric Abetz
    (Name in full)

    renouncing all other allegiance,
    *swear by Almighty God
    that I will be
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia,
    Her heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of
    Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen
    […]
    Date 3 December 1974
    Place Hobart

    … that “did not result in their foreign nationality being relinquished under the law of those countries.” That is, Dawson J found with Mason CJ, Toohey and McHugh JJ that taking the Australian oath of allegiance did not of itself cancel existing allegiance to other countries. However, Gaudron J agreed as to Cleary, and made comments concerning Kardimitsis and Delacretaz, who (in my interpretation) he found had both renounced renounced their other citizenships through their oaths of allegiance to Australia.

    In total, that would seem to indicate that a majority of the High Court (in Sykes v Cleary) were of the view that the oath of allegiance taken by those becoming naturalised Australians was not sufficient to renounce one’s foreign citizenship.

    The views of the High Court on whether Delacretaz and Kardimitsis were eligible candidates:
    Ineligible: Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson, Toohey and Hume JJ
    Eligible: Deane and Gaudron JJ.

    So, if this case (Sykes v Cleary) were to be the sole legal determinant of the status of Eric Abetz during those years prior to 2010, then the question would seem to be, ‘Did Eric Abetz take reasonable steps to renounce his German citizenship’. The majority opinion of the High Court at that time seemed to be that our oath of affirmation was not sufficient in itself.

    However, the carbon copy letter supplied here on Tas Times would seem to indicate that a reasonable attempt to renounce his citizenship had been made by Eric Abetz. John (Hawkins) has suggested “that it was created by Abetz after his election to a casual vacancy in 1994 after his failure at the ballot box in 1993.” John has given some reasons in support of this allegation. My discussion on the Sykes v Cleary case was in response to John mentioning it in his reasons for rejecting the authenticity of the 26 Nov1992 Abetz renunciation of German citizenship. It’s an interesting case, and I would still like to be clearer on what I have suggested elsewhere: that then current German law seems to have provided (and continues to provide) for the automatic loss of one’s German citizenship when becoming a citizen of certain countries (including Australia) — unless successful prior application had been made to retain that German citizenship. If anyone has some knowledge of the mechanism of such an ‘automatic loss’, I would like to see it.

  49. garrystannus@hotmail.com

    August 20, 2017 at 12:08 pm

    John in his article referred to Sykes v Cleary (1992) as a possible prompt/cover for the ‘1992’ Abetz letter of renunciation. John’s point seems to be that this letter might be a forgery, constructed after 1994, when Abetz entered the Senate by filling a vacancy that had arisen. I don’t offer an opinion on that suggestion.

    However, I have done a little reading and note-taking, for my own personal interest – after all, the present Canberran debacle is quite topical. Here are some notes on the Sykes v Cleary High Court judgement, though I’m not suggesting that they do or that they don’t have any bearing on Eric Abetz’s status before 2010.

    SOURCE: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/60.html -Sykes v Cleary, did this case prompt Abetz to renounce in 1992?
    SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer_v_Cattermole -this case, cited in Sykes v Cleary: German dual citizenship possible?

    Background: Phil Cleary was on leave without pay from the Education Department when he nominated for the House of Representatives. He resigned from his Teaching position before the results of the election were declared. He was declared elected and subsequently Ian Sykes (an unsuccessful candidate) successfully petitioned the High Court over Cleary’s eligibility to be elected. His ineligibility (under s44(iv) of the Constitution … holding an office of profit…) was confirmed and the HC said that his ineligibility included his nomination, which is seen as part of the ‘election’, The finding of his ineligibility resulted in the House of Reps election being declared void;

    (had it been in the Senate, the ballot papers would have been re-examined, e.g. as they are in the case of a candidate who has died; thus had Cleary stood for the Senate,the vote for that ineligible candidate would have gone to the next preferred candidate).

    Cleary was a popular local football club captain-coach in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. He had stood for Bob Hawke’s seat when Hawke retired and had won it – as an independent who was seen as left wing and socialist. He was very popular in the northern suburbs, which were working-class areas. He is an intelligent man and I respect him. (Check him out on Wiki…) However, his election was challenged in the High Court.

    There were two other candidates in the same seat during that election whose eligibility for election was also examined by the High Court: John Delacretaz and Bill Kardimitsis who both had become naturalised Australians though had not renounced their respective Swiss and Greek citizenships. Delacretaz held no other passport, having obtained an Australian passport in 1960; Kardimitsis surrendered his Greek passport when he became an Australian citizen and obtained an Australian passport in 1978. The law of both Switzerland and Greece was that application had to be made to each respective country in order to be released from citizenship.

    Their eligibility to election/entitlement to election was also petitioned by Sykes, this time on different grounds … (under s44(i) of the Constitution … citizen of a foreign power…) . I quote from 52. Sykes v Cleary:

    It would be wrong to interpret the constitutional provision in such a way as to disbar an Australian citizen who had taken all reasonable steps to divest himself or herself of any conflicting allegiance.

    Obviously such a statement brings to mind the present difficulties of a number of our Federal politicians. But the question (for our purposes) is: did Eric Abetz take reasonable steps to divest himself …
    /…

  50. John Hawkins

    August 20, 2017 at 11:34 am

    Trevor Cowell #39

    Yes, I am unhappy about something!

    That something is the unspoken lexicon of the Liberals in Tasmania.

    Forestry lies, more lies, more damned lies and skewed statistics.

    Abetz, Barnett, Harriss, Robin Gray are all Liberal pollies that have used the Forestry debate to stir up trouble using lies and statistics to fund through government handouts the destroyers of Arcadia.

    Why?

    To advance their political snouts in the golden political trough.

    How can you renew a Regional Forestry Agreement, with a bankrupt loss-making business that is so on the nose it has had to change its name, unless you are brain dead?

    Why would you renew such an agreement when it is obvious that the current agreement has not worked to the advantage of decent Tasmanians involved in the Forestry industry, many of whom are now out of a job?

    The Feds and this State have paid out over $400 million to keep this bankrupt Forestry show on the road over the last 4 years!

    Where is the logic in destroying an asset at a loss to the taxpayer?

    If you had even a modicum of intelligence you would understand it is all about wedge politics and staying in power, and has nothing to do with the good of the industry or Tasmania.

    Abetz and his all-male cronies live the political lie of burnished gold and arrows of desire.

    When those arrows are embedded in the Forestry carcass they release the stench of corruption.

    That is why I am unhappy!

  51. TGC

    August 20, 2017 at 12:09 am

    #37 “…why the launch of the 20 year extension to the RFA was held at the Neville Smith factory at Mowbray…”
    Absolutely no idea- and care even less- but #37 continues to be unhappy about something…?

  52. Lynne Newington

    August 19, 2017 at 8:21 pm

    I can’t help thinking maybe John Hawkins has indirectly began a landslide with all the recent questionable citizenship issues on all sides of politics. It only take one loose stone…..

  53. John Hawkins

    August 19, 2017 at 11:15 am

    Perhaps Cowell would like to comment why the launch of the 20 year extension to the RFA was held at the Neville Smith factory at Mowbray, a factory which has received from Barnett and the Liberals $440,000 as a grant.

    What is half a million among friends?

    Further how did the finances work when this company, Neville Smith Forest Products, came by the Southwood plant in the Huon via Gunns who in a possibly criminal sale had flicked it with ministerial approval to another bankrupt company, Forestry Tasmania. Forestry Tasmania flicked it in turn in a fire sale to Neville Smith Forest Products as announced by Harriss of the Huon, then in the Legislative Council all after the Tasmanian Intergovernmental Forestry Agreement had refinanced the Industry.

    Trevor, it pays to keep in with your darling Liberals.

    As can be seen when it is announced in your factory that the Liberal party has given unfettered access to Tasmania’s old growth forests for another 20 years to your principal supplier – the bankrupt name changer, Forestry Tasmania.

    No wonder winners are grinners.

    Do you think Malcolm baby had any idea as to what was going on, Trevor?

    Nah!

  54. TGC

    August 19, 2017 at 12:44 am

    “Then you let yourself down by using your imagination,…”
    or stating the bleedin’ obvious.

  55. John Hawkins

    August 18, 2017 at 8:19 pm

    #34 Trevor Cowell (TGC)

    In the first three paragraphs I thought: “By George he’s got it!” You were doing so well showing both a clear grasp and a close understanding of this complex matter.

    Then you let yourself down by using your imagination, reverting to type – the Liberal Party Tasmanian show pony hauled in on a slab from the Knacker’s Yard.

  56. TGC

    August 18, 2017 at 3:51 pm

    #30 “It seems extremely likely, thanks to the diligence of the John Hawkins, that Mr Abetz is involved in a “blatant case of fraud and distrust.”
    And yet- despite that level of undoubted certainty- the Senator hasn’t been ‘evicted’ from that post.
    Some might suggest he has friends in very High places who put more value on that friendship than integrity, honesty and observance of the law.
    Or, it’s all in someone’s imagination- and those with such should ‘move along…nothing to see here’?

  57. Robin Charles Halton

    August 18, 2017 at 2:49 pm

    #30 Ross, please man up and give your surname in keeping with the good character Charter among us trusting TT respondents.

    Just to put the record straight, I am not keen on Abetz but he is a part of the Coalition mechanism in order to keep it functioning as I am led to believe!

    I was simply suggesting to John Hawkins that it would be an impossible task to ground him!

    I am displeased with certain members of Labor are acting badly to bring down the Coalition government and others with their ridiculous outbursts over dual citizenship issues, namely Shorten and Burke, both as disengaged back stabbers who are only creating problems for their own party.

    I am yet to look closely at the renewed RFA for 2017-2037 but forestry has taken on an expansionist role particularly within the private sector with some indication the public sector may be well served with the opening up of former State Forest areas on a needs basis.

    Forestry will always be a challenge but we should be proud that we can still produce fine quality eucalypt board timber and that we dont need to import such from countries that fail have the sort of environmental controls that Tasmania has.

    I will reply directly to John Hawkins shortly!

    Now Ross your full name in order to comply to the reasonable persons TT Charter!

  58. Peter Bright

    August 18, 2017 at 1:44 pm

    Peter Godfrey writes [i]”Still the mainstream media have not bothered to include Mr Abetz in their list of doubtfuls.”[/i]

    Of course not, Pete. The mainstream media is the Liberals’ propaganda machine. The relationship is illicitly symbiotic.

    I believe it would be quite proper for Mr Abetz himself to offer the Court the opportunity to process his occupational legitimacy, or otherwise.

  59. Peter Godfrey

    August 18, 2017 at 12:05 pm

    Still the mainstream media have not bothered to include Mr Abetz in their list of doubtfuls.
    Surely telling porkies on your resume counts for something.

  60. Ross

    August 18, 2017 at 1:04 am

    Robin, you may have graciously read my comment but there is nothing gracious in your response.

    The small matter of the runaway climate is not “scare mongering”. These days the only people making that claim have a vested interest in fossil fuels or an intellectual disability.

    Strange that you see fit to call a Labor MP a mongrel while having a blind spot the size of planet about your mates in the LNP, in particular our mutual friend Erich. It seems extremely likely, thanks to the diligence of the John Hawkins, that Mr Abetz is involved in a “blatant case of fraud and distrust.” If Abetz was engaged in any profession other than politics (or banking) he would have been before a court years ago and it would have cost him dearly.

    The “more important issues” that you suggest parliament should not be distracted from are in fact caused by the blind adherence to neo-liberalism. We can’t expect the agents of corporations and investors to fix housing affordability, homelessness, or electricity prices. Inequality is designed into the system that the LNP puppets support.

    Sadly Turnbull was not so distracted that he managed a trip to Tasmania to sign off on another 20 years of forest bastardry.

    It doesn’t concern me one bit if parliament is broken up by some archaic passage in the constitution or if it is blasted to pieces by a passing Vogon fleet. We will be no worse off without this crooked parliament than with it.

  61. spikey 'no clothes' riddoch

    August 18, 2017 at 12:16 am

    nah haltons right
    he’s no threat to our democracy
    our democracy however
    will threaten him
    and the rest of the great pretenders
    serving naught
    but themselves
    and the usual megalomaniacs

  62. John Hawkins

    August 17, 2017 at 7:21 pm

    Halton #27

    A Minister of the Crown / Forests who sends visitors to your front door to threaten you over the acceptance of donations by Gunns (a logging company chasing a Pulp Mill) to the Liberal Party is most certainly a risk to democracy.

    That is why I am on the trail of the appalling Senator Erich Abetz.

    That this sort of behaviour is seemingly condoned by many such as yourself who seem to consider that whatever it takes is acceptable, is, I suggest also a risk to democracy.

    As for myself I will never forget and certainly never forgive!

  63. Robin Charles Halton

    August 17, 2017 at 5:57 pm

    # 26 Ross, I most graciously read your comments but I am more focused on our everyday expectations from our representatives.

    Most countries engage in what is perceived as less than desirable business, I agree Australia is no exception, the sale of the Darwin port and large tracts of land to the Chinese could lead to a disastrous outcomes for national security issues, depending on how things are being played out knowing that China uses Australia, so far, as a soft target to get at our resources and as an imperial outpost for future expansion.

    Getting essential parliamentary business into the Senate and then debated and if acceptable passed, appears to be slowed down by dithering and dis-aggregation, the gay marriage public mail out vote and more recently Australia Day!

    I would not expect the country to go to pieces over either but Parliament should deal directly with gay marriage by a conscience vote, get it over and done with and move onto those most important issues being electricity reliability and affordability, moves to assist first home buyers caught up in the discriminating real estate boom and solve some of the homelessness crises by providing major drop in health centres to maintain their dignity and health.

    Much of the basic needs and expectations for the everyday citizen is becoming eroded by scare campaigns over climate change and Green politics.

    In my opinion it may take a rise of the right to bring the Coalition, labor and the fast Disappearing Greens to their senses as One Nation despite the crazy burqua stunt by their leader our Pauline to bring about the change to serve Australians first, by slashing immigration numbers to sustainable levels that can adequately balance mixed population levels within a reasonable level of social compatibility.

    Australia is a land of migrants, nothing strange about our parliamentary representation, the alleged slips up over dual citizenship is no excuse to bust up the elected Parliament as Shorten and that mongerel Burke would like to happen. High Court decision should not be lead to directly affect elected representatives unless in the meantime there is proven a blatant case of fraud and distrust.

    I would doubt if John’s TT target, the conniving Senator would be considered as a risk to our democracy.

  64. Ross

    August 17, 2017 at 3:49 pm

    Robin, your comments are either the product of delusion or extremely poor comprehension.

    “…our Parliament will head into chaos and we the people will lose confidence and trust in politicians who firstly represent us.”

    Parliament has been in chaos for a while, before that it did nothing. Remember “Stick With the Plan”? There was no plan (except to continue to torture innocent people in our “care” and to consolidate all of the vileness of this government under the rule of Deadshit Dutton).

    The people have no confidence in this government. We don’t trust them. Let the honourable members squabble over citizenship until the day arrives for a new election, once this distraction goes away they will just go back to making things worse.

    “Fines are unlikely to happen unless there are proven extremely blatant issues of dual citizenship abuse and history of dishonesty!”

    Did you RTFA? I can’t think of any dual citizenship case more blatantly dishonest than that of Herr Abetz. Tony Abbot appears to have committed fraud but that doesn’t even come close to the Abetz scandal.

    The real reason that fines are unlikely is that the law does not seem to apply to those nuggets who float to the top of the LNP cess pit.

    “If the High Court denies Joyce of his ability to remain as a member of Parliament this could result in civil unrest…”

    Unfortunately not. Australians have retained their dignified apathy as our “leaders” inflict heinous human rights abuses on refugees; erode our freedom; endanger us all by participating in illegal wars; sell our ports and farms; accept US military and spy bases; sell uranium to in contravention of the non-proliferation treaty; simultaneously create conditions for unlimited real estate speculation and homelessness; polarize wealth, access to education, decent employment and opportunity.

    I don’t see anyone marching in the street if Barnaby takes a tumble. However if takes his disgusting live export hobby with him there might be a few relieved sheep and cattle.

    Thanks to John and TT for keeping the spotlight on this conniving senator.

  65. Roge Kint

    August 16, 2017 at 11:20 pm

  66. John Hawkins

    August 16, 2017 at 10:26 pm

    Halton

    I travel around the world three times a year on business and do three major fairs in various capitals.

    This year I am running two conducted tours for my leading international clients from Singapore and Hong Kong in Vienna and Munich.

    I find toad hunting both soothing and relaxing for it takes my mind off my somewhat punishing schedule.

    Thankyou for your solicitations.

    The Beerepoot family deeply believe in their actions regarding the Meander Valley Council and unfortunately nothing will sway them.

    I can only admire them for their faith and confidence that God will always look after them, however we will see.

    I can assure you that this family is also particularly hardworking and honourable, a great addition to our small village. Here they are much admired and loved and I am proud to call them my friends.

  67. Robin Charles Halton

    August 16, 2017 at 7:16 pm

    John Hawkins, looks as if your version of the Abetz outcasting campaign may not happen, you know he is only 58 years of age, relatively young for a seasoned politician.

    Funny, I always thought he was older!
    Belly aching over his case history may exhaust you and we cant have that, can we, John!

    I’m sure you have better thing to concentrate on. I wont name your pet annoyances but I bet the failed plantations down the road will keep you out of harms way.
    I’ve heard there is a bit of excitement at normally quiet little hamlet of Chudleigh, the Beerepoots “House of God” is to be auctioned by the local council for refusal for paying rates over a number of years, claims that God is the owner.
    Must be something funny in the honey affecting their extreme leap of faith!

  68. TGC

    August 16, 2017 at 7:05 pm

    #21 I thought the law was freely available- you don’t mean to tell me the High Court charges?
    No wonder it’s only “the big end of town” that gets in there.
    Gotta get that changed.

  69. John hawkins

    August 16, 2017 at 1:49 pm

    Glad to hear that you will help with the funding Trevor. I never thought you had it in you.

  70. TGC

    August 16, 2017 at 1:03 pm

    In the unlikely event that Senator Abetz doesn’t follow instructions and resign from the Senate – will a case be mounted in the High Court to force him out?

  71. Robin Charles Halton

    August 16, 2017 at 12:29 pm

    #17,Carol Fines are unlikely to happen unless there are proven extremely blatant issues of dual citizenship abuse and history of dishonesty!
    Dishhonesty proven take, Sussan Ley and Sam Dastyari are the most likely examples!

    Just another one of these rules where the pollies themselves are basically excused and end up on the backbench instead.

    #18 Peter Bright, agree that is the best way to go foward otherwise parliament will fall short of public expectations for our representatives.

  72. Peter Bright

    August 16, 2017 at 11:01 am

    There appears much genuine innocence in this vexing matter which regretably has lobbed well into the realm of the unfair and unjust.

    I think all suspensions and resignations should be reversed and all politicians re-instated as things were, with full restoration of positions and salary.

    Individual cases should promptly be examined at law and decisions made on the person’s discerned level of guile and/or culpability.

    This way Australia gets good politicians back in harness without loss to nation or injustice to the individual.

    That would be fair and just.

  73. Carol Rea

    August 16, 2017 at 6:53 am

    #12 Dear Robin. Not rubbish at all. That Act is dated 1975 not 1875. Here you go http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cida1975507/s3.html

  74. Robin Charles Halton

    August 16, 2017 at 1:47 am

    The PM should be asking for calm at the same time the Opposition should be agreeing to do likewise, otherwise our Parliament will head into chaos and we the people will lose confidence and trust in politicians who firstly represent us.

    They should be united in this “crisis”.

    As both sides and some of the “Independents” have similar issues with the dual citizenship “crisis”, stick together and keep the usual parliamentary business moving.

    Idiots like Shorten and Burke are definitely on the wrong track trying to make Joyce a scapegoat, unnecessary and definitely not in the public interest.

    The PM has to take control to maintain order, a truce from all sides is necessary as it is starting to look like a kindergarten without any form of caring and control!

    Pity those two Greens gave up too soon, they must be dumb acting like “honest heroes” maybe!

  75. Simon Warriner

    August 15, 2017 at 10:11 pm

    Regardless, after all this carry on there will be no excuse for not getting it right again. Frankly, I am more than a tad surprised that the Coalition got caught with it’s pants so close to it’s ankles.

  76. john hayward

    August 15, 2017 at 9:09 pm

    #13, Godfrey. The Constitution can, and has been, overridden by the crony system when conventional evidence fails to supply desired outcomes.

    This view is most recently supported by the views of both the PM and the federal A-G that the political interests of their government take precedence over the Constitution, vis the case of that old whippersnapper and property investor, Barnaby.

    John Hayward

  77. Peter Godfrey

    August 15, 2017 at 7:48 pm

    #12 Robin, I think that you will find that the High Court does not have the power to alter the constitution.
    As far as I know only the people of Australia have that power by a referendum.
    There is nothing the court or politicians can do about it. The court may rule that it reads the constitution in a certain way as they do on other laws but that can be challenged and may be overturned by a higher court or another judge.

  78. Robin Charles Halton

    August 15, 2017 at 6:23 pm

    #9 Absolute rubbish, the particular part of the Constitution was made 116 years ago when Australia embraced not only a White Australia policy but excluded aliens from from becoming members of Parliament.
    For example, deGermanisation was also rampant during WWI and to a lesser extent WWII.

    Although I am not keen on Joyce in my opinion it is likely the High Court will need to design an up to date ruling as most of our Parliament, one way or another, is made up of immigrants based family connections.

    If the High Court denies Joyce of his ability to remain as a member of Parliament this could result in civil unrest as it could be seen as people losing first of all their trust closely followed by their democratic right to vote for their choice of members to form government to rule the nation.

    Carol, in my opinion your Green mates, Ludlam and Waters jumped the gun but should have remained in Parliament despite their disclosures.

    In fairness, all affected members of Parliament should remain in place till an up to date ruling is made to effectively facilitate the peoples wishes.

  79. Old Man a Ross

    August 15, 2017 at 10:13 am

    The calculator is courtesy of the Reserve Bank

    Re comment 9 & 10, taking inflation into account these figure should make Barnaby Choice sit up and take notice!!

    Imagine what Abetz’s bill would be for the period 1994 to 2010!!

  80. Carol Rea

    August 15, 2017 at 7:10 am

    Anthony Green on citizenship ( not a Tt article -my error) http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2017/08/barnaby-joyce-joins-the-citizenship-imbroglio.html and the comment regarding a daily fine .

    If Mr Joyce continues to sit in the House, he runs the risk of being sued under the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975, which enables the first person who takes it to court to get $200 from him for every day he sits while disqualified.

    Interestingly, the penalty originally prescribed in 1901 by section 46 of the Constitution was 100 pounds per day, which was a LOT of money then. Clearly, sitting while disqualified was seen then as a very serious transgression, calling for a strong deterrent. It’s only been brought down to a trivial amount by 116 years of inflation. And of course it’s the politicians to whom the penalty could apply who have allowed its real value so to decline.

  81. Carol Rea

    August 15, 2017 at 7:02 am

    John you may be able to recoup some dollars. From another thread on TT today.
    If Mr Joyce continues to sit in the House, he runs the risk of being sued under the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975, which enables the first person who takes it to court to get $200 from him for every day he sits while disqualified.

    Interestingly, the penalty originally prescribed in 1901 by section 46 of the Constitution was 100 pounds per day, which was a LOT of money then. Clearly, sitting while disqualified was seen then as a very serious transgression, calling for a strong deterrent. It’s only been brought down to a trivial amount by 116 years of inflation. And of course it’s the politicians to whom the penalty could apply who have allowed its real value so to decline.

  82. TGC

    August 14, 2017 at 8:06 pm

    #7 “These effects might have been due either to reduced metabolic and developmental rates in isolated individuals or the fact that the isolated individuals hadn’t had a training period to learn about what others were like via their antennae’”
    or they may have been building Mercedes Benz motor vehicles in an attempt to match the wizardry of the Holden?

  83. spikey 'no clothes' riddoch

    August 14, 2017 at 3:45 pm

    fascinating stuff
    i did some ‘research’

    ‘Some species, such as the gregarious German cockroach, have an elaborate social structure involving common shelter, social dependence, information transfer and kin recognition’

    ‘Gregarious German cockroaches show different behavior when reared in isolation from when reared in a group. In one study, isolated cockroaches were less likely to leave their shelters and explore, spent less time eating, interacted less with conspecifics when exposed to them, and took longer to recognize receptive females. Because these changes occurred in many contexts, the authors suggested them as constituting a behavioral syndrome. These effects might have been due either to reduced metabolic and developmental rates in isolated individuals or the fact that the isolated individuals hadn’t had a training period to learn about what others were like via their antennae’

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockroach
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cockroach

  84. Ted Mead

    August 14, 2017 at 2:06 pm

    OMG – We definitely need another image of this buffoon!

    One has to admire John’s tenacity to hound this spiritless soul.
    I hope his efforts are fulfilled, but as Jack Lumber summed it up –

    “Erica well he has a survivability rating greater than a cockroach”

  85. TGC

    August 14, 2017 at 1:48 pm

    #3 “In any functioning society John Hawkins would be awarded the highest title for his determined actions to ensure our elected representatives meet their obligations.”
    or the more popular award
    “Oh No , Not Again!- Give It A Rest!”

  86. Chris

    August 14, 2017 at 1:10 pm

    Seems to me that Herrbettz has to do it all again ‘For the Austrayan People ” (with suitable voice whining and weasel words)
    Should that be Erich at #2?
    “The High Court must attempt to quash the showdown re citizenship test for Parliamentarians”.
    The High Court can only suggest change and a referendum must follow.

  87. O'Brien

    August 14, 2017 at 12:42 pm

    In any functioning society John Hawkins would be awarded the highest title for his determined actions to ensure our elected representatives meet their obligations. However the teflon weasel Abetz will stop at nothing to maintain the position he cheated his way into. We are also unaware of what masters the Senator answers to, aside from his deity in the sky. When vested interest runs into billions and billions of shekels life becomes cheap.

  88. Robin Charles Halton

    August 14, 2017 at 12:41 pm

    A huge showdown is about to break loose!
    John could end up as a cranky old man lost in the maze, after his years of dedicated service towards Eric Abetz is finally upheld in the High Court using Barnaby Joyce case as first cab off the rank to test the “dual” citizenship issues!

    Perhaps the two Green Senators Ludlam and Waters, both being impatient jumped the gun and have since disgraced themselves by giving in by resigning too soon without considering reasonable options.

    The High Court must attempt to quash the showdown re citizenship test for Parliamentarians.

    Who will have the last laugh. Could be Eric too!

  89. john hayward

    August 14, 2017 at 12:30 pm

    In defence of Eric, I can state that the clanging irregularities in his account of his citizenship negotiations are not that unusual in the Tas legal system.

    His discretion was far more evident in his Q&A appearance last night, where he had to be cornered, like his soul-mate Trumpty Dumpty, into condemning the neo-Nazi and white supremacist thuggery in Virginia, while maintaining punctilio against non-Coalition citizenship slips.

    John Hayward

Leave a Reply

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

To Top