I'm not. I do have a convict who wasn't transported in my ancestry, though.
David Seymour takes the cake with his claim that Labour’s plan to teach kids Civics at school is an ‘Orwellian’ and ‘dodgy’ way to indoctrinate young people to Left-wing views!!
Maybe it challenges his beloved Charter Schools.
Or maybe he realises his ‘Market- driven’ policies won’t stack up to young minds.
What David Seymour is really scared of is that civics education would mean a less gullible public. His world-view relies on a classic strategy of ignorance.
I'm thinking that the real upside of this whole Barnaby Joyce citizenship row will be extra business for Ancestry.com - I can picture their new ad campaign now...
His world-view relies on a classic strategy of ignorance.
Much like some Australian politicians I can think of...
Sir ordinary, everyday guy,
Even out of office Key doesn’t heed his own department’s advice…
"The thing I like about the knighthood is more that it become Lady Bronagh….
uh John – check this first
The wife of a knight may use the courtesy title of “Lady” before her surname, provided she uses her husband’s surname. For example, the wife of Sir John Smith is: Lady Smith.
To distinguish between other women with the same name and title, it may be necessary to use a forename; e.g. Mary, Lady Smith.
Just what is it with National MPs inability to accept expert advice?
The Barnaby Joyce scrap has really shown up the difference between the Australian (plus international) media, and some of our own local hacks. Basically everyone outside NZ (from the NYT to the BBC) has reported the story as "Aussie Foreign Minister loses plot", because that's the bigger player making the bigger news. Meanwhile those trapped in the little Wellington village of Pressgallery think it's all about Chris Hipkins.
They are so immersed in their world they can't see the wide one. (Next up: North Korea attacks USA, WW3 begins, Soper and Gower say this is bad news for the Greens).
They must be getting their news leads from the national party posters on the Trademe messageboard.
As long as we're onto this topic, can someone explain to me what caused DIA and MFAT, via the NZ High Commission, to inform Barnaby Joyce of his citizenship when he never asked about it? Even moreso, why did they inform him of who was asking hypothetical questions about NZ citizenship, which were not directly related to him anyway?
NZ media's largely been focusing on Hipkins and Labour's involvement, but I'd really like to see Peter Dunne and Gerry Brownlee quizzed for their perspective on why DIA and MFAT acted as they did. Instead, Dunne's been deflecting attention from DIA by declaring to Australian media that media queries were more responsible than Hipkins' queries, and Brownlee's been deflecting attention from MFAT by (that link just above) declaring that Bishop's outburst against Labour was justified.
Whatever the appropriateness of Chris Hipkins' involvement, Barnaby Joyce would have found out anyway via either Australian Media or the ALP. When the NZ High Commission pre-emptively notified him, and told him who'd been asking questions, it went from a domestic Australian problem into an international diplomatic incident.
MFAT's actions in notifying Joyce about something he never requested became the trigger for possibly destabilising Australia's government, and the immediate rhetoric which Joyce and Bishop broadcast about Hipkins' involvement, which was probably at least overstated if not completely incorrect, might even have risked affecting New Zealand's election. Surely the diplomatic sensitivity of the action must have been recognised by NZ's diplomatic staff, who for some reason decided that warning an Australian Deputy PM that both his country's media and parliamentary opposition were planning to ambush him was more important than avoiding an international incident?
Are there are some objective criteria which exist in DIA and MFAT for deciding when to notify Australian MPs if it's noticed they have NZ Citizenship? If not, how can we be certain there's not a rogue employee (or Minister) somewhere in the agencies who's deciding, possibly with malicious intent, which Australian MPs to inform and which to leave alone? I'm sure that's probably not happening, but I find it concerning that it could be happening.
I’d really like to see Peter Dunne and Gerry Brownlee quizzed for their perspective on why DIA and MFAT acted as they did.
Considering Brownlee is Bishop's lapdog (judging by his interactions so far) perhaps he thought he was 'helping'...
Thanks to Russell posting a link on Twitter I see Politik has given a lengthier sequence of events between DIA and MFAT and Ministers, but I still can't see a clear explanation of why MFAT decided it should tell Joyce about his citizenship at all.
The details of anyone's citizenship isn't secret or private information as far as I'm aware. Certainly the register of births is a public document and consequently you can get an idea on anyone's status by birth or descent. I'd think it would be OIA-applicable for that reason?
I'm opposed to the idea that dual citizenship should disqualify one from becoming a legislator, with the proviso that candidates must disclose their citizenships (along with any other material conflicts of interest) on standing, so that the voters can decide.
So does the husband of a dame get some sort of title?
And what about David Furnish, who is the wife (or husband if he prefers) of a knight?
Politik has given a lengthier sequence of events between DIA and MFAT and Ministers
in which it says:
Labour Leader Jacinda Ardern says that Hipkins had been asked to ask the question by an acquaintance in the Australian Labor Party.
Just heard Penny Wong on the radio saying that they never asked for questions to be asked in Parliament.
So does the husband of a dame get some sort of title?
Teal deer - No!
That link above does say this:
Husband of a dame
The husband of a dame is not accorded a courtesy title. A dame and her husband would jointly be addressed as: Dame Joan and Mr John Grant, or Mr John and Dame Joan Grant.
In the case of a dame who does not use her husband’s surname, the joint form of address would be: Dame Joan Grant and Mr John Smith.
[The use of a courtesy title by the spouse of a dame has been the subject of lengthy debate and study in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. No satisfactory solution to this anomaly has been found.]
As to Elton's husband - The Guardian weighs in here:
Same here and I agree with you about the dumbness of this constitution clause for Australia, but it remains their problem to deal with and fix.
Even though citizenships are public info, and so is the law which defines them for that matter, my concern's really more about why MFAT, and presumably Gerry Brownlee, apparently deemed it appropriate to trigger an international diplomatic incident, by actively informing Barnaby Joyce of his citizenship when he hadn't asked for that information, instead of leaving the whole thing to play out in Australian domestic politics.
Did Dunne or Brownlee even consider approaching Hipkins to find out if he understood the implications of what he was asking? (I'm unsure if they're able to do this or not.)
I can't see a scenario where nearly all of Australia's existing problems wouldn't have occurred anyway, but when MFAT told Joyce, and also pre-emptively told him other stuff about who was asking the questions, it seems to have simply resulted in
... an international mess that's tangled up NZ, and its election, in Australian politics, instead of just a domestic Australian mess.
(Sorry. I don't know what happened to the end of my previous comment.)
But the same effect could have been achieved, just a bit more slowly, if a member of the Australian Labour Party had hopped on a plane and as a person who is in New Zealand lodged an OIA asking for Joyce's citizenship status, if any?
They might not even need to do that - does the ALP have a branch in NZ, like the NZ Greens have a branch in London?
Yeah. Or they could have just read NZ law with some legal expertise, clarified Joyce's family history, even used the online tool, then asked Joyce in the Australian parliament to confirm in light of the evidence that he definitely wasn't a citizen. I don't even see why asking DIA should be necessary, unless you wanted to rule out the possibility that he'd renounced it.
I'm not meaning to suggest that Chris Hipkins should have been getting involved. I expect he probably had an idiot moment without thinking. Nevertheless, he's not governing the country right now. I'm am questioning how the government's handled this with respect to how it (a) seemingly took political sides in Australia by notifying the Australian Deputy PM that he was probably about to be ambushed by his media and opposition, and (b.. possibly) not approaching Chris Hipkins to query if he understood the implications of what he appeared to be involved in... instead apparently doing the opposite of highlighting his involvement to Barnaby Joyce.
You'd think avoiding an international diplomatic incident would be preferable over advancing petty politics, but I'm starting to wonder if it could be interesting to see the communications between Brownlee's office and MFAT around how to handle the knowledge that Barnaby Joyce was a New Zealand Citizen. If you're going to actively tell him that he's a citizen at the same time as suggesting that the NZ Labour Party might have been collaborating with his Australian opposition, it must have been a fairly obvious possibility that Joyce and his friends might go unpredictably crazy in media against NZ Labour in the Australian Parliament... conveniently a few weeks before a New Zealand election.
Or maybe I'm grasping at straws and dreaming up a conspiracy without cause. It'd be easy to claim it's highly sensitive information so I doubt we'd ever get to see those communications and advice, even if OIA'd.
Since the person who talked with Chris Hipkins is a New Zealand citizen, would hopping on planes even be necessary?
extra business for Ancestry.com
That’s pretty much exactly what I did. I learned my great-great-great-grandma Margaret was not only a staunch defender of Te Kooti but also an early critic of colonial psychoactive substances practice.
"like spiders webs to catch flies"
As for a contribution to Antipodean Lamarckism…
Well no, NZ citizens or permanent residents can just email.
(I'm not sure why they even bothered putting those clauses into the Act about who has standing to make a request as they're so easily circumvented. If you were an overseas corporation, you'd just have a lawyer do it and I'm sure they do. I guess it just acts as a spam preventor).
Also, anyone with a reasonable lawyer on NZ legislation, and Barnaby Joyce's basic family history, could confirm as much info as DIA were ever going to provide.
The main important thing DIA might add is if Joyce had registered renunciation of his citizenship, but it was never going to because apparently everyone was merely asking hypothetical questions about imaginary people.
Here is some illuminating reading on many relevant matters - The latest issue of CAFCA's Watchdog is now on-line.