Fatima Payman - Australia's Voice Party

[HairyO]

They included that in their previous ruling, that you should have made efforts to renounce it. Hanson is questioning what effort Payman had made. The same Hanson who would no doubt be going full-bore at Sen Payman if Payman had addressed anything to the Taliban as a polite way of renouncing her citizenship.

Im quite sure the High Court would look at the efforts made and agree. My point is more you cant say "see this is legal" based on the say-so of a lawyer.

That said, Hanson was obviously trolling as she is within her rights to petition the Court to investigate - as has been done a number of times over the years.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

And Payman kills environmental legislation to please the mining industry. She's a true blue Aussie after all!

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The Greens is pretty much the only one to have survived and grown. I would say that's because they're not a single-issue party and occupy a part of the spectrum once occupied by Labor.

Single-issue parties, or those perceived to be single-issue, are sentenced to death when that issue isn't making headlines anymore.

And yet, a lot of people in the media seem very angry at the Greens for not being a single-issue party and want them to go back to just caring about the environment only. Gee, I wonder why.

 

[RedStarUncle]

The High Court makes these decisions, not politicians and their lawyers. Technically she is a citizen of 2 countries so would not be eligible. However, one of those countries isnt really a country and doesnt really have a government or any way for someone to contact and relinquish their citizenship, so who knows. But it is something which the High Court should hear and decide on.

If the High Court needs to hear and decide on the case, then it just needs someone to go through the process and refer it to them. Instead of political grand-standing and creating a false sense of something being wrong or covered it up.

Pauline is within her rights to refer it to the High Court, and they would almost certainly rule in Payman's favour. And everyone has a right to criticise Pauline for referring the case despite no legal advice that there is an issue and effectively as a stunt.


If you think there's a case to be heard... you also have the right to refer it.

 

[HairyO]

If the High Court needs to hear and decide on the case, then it just needs someone to go through the process and refer it to them. Instead of political grand-standing and creating a false sense of something being wrong or covered it up.

Pauline is within her rights to refer it to the High Court, and they would almost certainly rule in Payman's favour. And everyone has a right to criticise Pauline for referring the case despite no legal advice that there is an issue and effectively as a stunt.


If you think there's a case to be heard... you also have the right to refer it.

Absolutely. But also, when this all first started years ago politicians were referring themselves. If Payman really has no issue why doesnt she write a one-pager and get it ended.

She likely wants the attention as much as Hanson does.

 

[RedStarUncle]

Absolutely. But also, when this all first started years ago politicians were referring themselves. If Payman really has no issue why doesnt she write a one-pager and get it ended.

She likely wants the attention as much as Hanson does.

It really does suit both of them to argue with each other about it, rather than just resolve the issue like adults.