The Pickering Post
Monday, 28th May 2018

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


Larry Pickering

Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.

BlogFacebook

HIGH COURT BETTER GET THIS RIGHT OR WE’RE ALL STUFFED!


It's a bloody big building for seven ordinary judges and the High Court is not required to follow case law, it can create it. And the first appearance of dual-national pollies will be a mere directions hearing for cases that might need a Governor General’s intervention on a grander scale than John Kerr’s. This won’t be settled before December.

More stuff-ups than a Chinese teddy bear factory... so it's hard to rely on this gaggle

If the Court finds that these mugs were not elected legally then all subsequent legislation that relied on their vote is necessarily negated. And then what’s to prevent further claims that all previous governments’ legislation could be in doubt. 

Julia Gillard alone banged through 600 Bills, mostly with a majority of one using the despicable Peter Slipper as Speaker.

You would think the High Court would need to ignore the Constitution and reinstate these dual nationals to save a calamitous crisis. But the High Court is the defender and interpreter of our Constitution and it should act appropriately. But what Australian judges have ever acted appropriately, or even judiciously for that matter?


The only sure bet is that the Governor General Cosgrove (above) will take a short walk up the road to have a chat with these stuffed shirts and blouses in the High Court. 

Maybe because the old Lefty GG once awarded Julia Gillard with the highest Australian honour possible. Hmmm.

And there is f***-all that is honourable about that woman.



More

Climate Lessons from King Canute


CAR PARKING A FISCAL (AND MEDICAL) RIPOFF


WHO READS WHAT!

Comments

Prediction: Our high court (lower case to reflect my approval) will find 5/4 that the lefties under scrutiny will be fine, the Malcolm Roberts's in our parliament will be gone. But the real kicker will be proof incontrovertible that the high court is totally fallible without unanimous agreement. And if you follow that logic ALL fucking lawyers are not worth a pinch of shit, elected or not.

Sue the countries who steal your identity and make you a national when you do not wish to be a citizen of that country and you never asked to be a citizen. From my perspective the laws of that other country DO NOT pertain to anyone not born there unless they want those laws to pertain. There should be no requirement to opt out, only a requirement to opt in. If all the countries report the number of citizens they think they have because of these archaic laws, there is probably only 5 billion people in the world because a couple of billion have been counted twice...

In my mind The Australia Act (Cth and UK) 1986 renders our Constitution null and void. As Malcolm says, Australia is already a republic.
.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
.
The Australia Act 1986 is the name given to a pair of separate but related pieces of legislation: one an Act of the Commonwealth (i.e. federal) Parliament of Australia, the other an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. While each Act gives its short title as "Australia Act 1986", in Australia they are referred to, respectively, as the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK). These nearly identical Acts were passed by the two parliaments, to come into effect simultaneously, because of uncertainty as to which of the two parliaments had the ultimate authority to do so.

The Australia Act (Cth and UK) eliminated the remaining possibilities for the UK to legislate with effect in Australia, for the UK to be involved in Australian government, and for an appeal from any Australian court to a British court.[1]
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Act_1986

Meanwhile, back at the farm .....

Get more done.

Will past politicians be made to refund the monies paid if the High Court rules that way??

What about the Muslims that have snuck into our parliament over the last few years? They can not give allegiance to Australia as their allegiance MUST be given to Allah and if Allah is not a foreign power, then I don't know what the hell is. Section 44 of OUR constitution states that anyone that gives allegiance to a foreign power can not enter OUR parliament.

I suppose they could, as long as the robots could be programmed do present the usual daily Donald Trump hate show, the Pauline Hanson ridiculing show, the Global Warming "Experts" show and all the Leftards glorifying shows and not to forget their beloved Pillow biters...

We'd already be well on the road to becoming part of the caliphate. I was going to say "an islamic nation" but they don't believe in nations. Just the caliphate.

I suggest that at the time of writing the Commonwealth Constitution, its writers were delivering a Constitution for a British colony. Australia had a Union Jack in its flag, a British Monarch as head of state and we were clearly a colony in the British Commonwealth. We were BRITISH SUBJECTS, and when the poms referred to dual citizenship or allegiance to a foreign power, they meant any country that wasn't a part of the British Empire. If the High Court consider the original intention they should conclude that NO-ONE born here is or was anything but a British citizen. This logic should protect Barnaby Joyce because NZ would have been a British colony too. David Ettridge.

THEY WILL RULE THAT IT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO MAKE THE CORRECT DECISION.

The issue should be whether a Commonwealth nation is a 'foreign power', given that we all swear allegiance to the same head of state. In fact the question first was asked back in 1999 whether Britain was a foreign power in relation to section 44 of the Constitution. It related to the same appeal made to disqualify a One Nation Senate candidate in Qld, who was a British dual citizen. The ruling was a 4 to 3 majority, so was not really a clear ruling. The dissenting judges including Kirby, believed that the high court had no jurisdiction, and the power rested in the parliament to decide on the eligibility of candidates. So the issue is not clear cut, but the high court has ruled in the past against dual citizens. It dosn't look good for a few of them.

WBL..I think we would be worried.Turnbull is aiming to be El Presidente and the first thing he would do is get rid of the Constitution.

LP, you mention that despicable person Juliar Gillard in your article. Perhaps she and many others were dual citizens. Why has the ALP embarked on this crusade to out dual citizens it should also look at it's own nest of present and past crawlies.

With a bollard

We're already stuffed

If you did you would have to remember to never switch it ON. Just to maintain productivity.

The correct decision should be that none were validly elected but there will be a political decision. Remember the Mabo bullshit decision and Roe v Wade in the US. These judges are the servants of the politicians. They will make it all go away.

At one time people would have been proud of having a dual passport with the UK. it meant that many aussies that had a grandparent from the uk also had no trouble with UK entry issues ,But seemingly having any form of official passport recognition with the UK is seen as almost a crime in modern aus today,,When some pollies take the oath of allegience on the Koran one has to wonder where our priorities are these days,you cannot be an mp with a dual passport but can swear your loyalty to an often violent religious cult.

I thought they had , they repeat the same news report hour after hour on 24 ,