by Ganesh Sahathevan
The words above in an Australian passport constitute a formal request from the Governor General, who represents Queen Elizabeth The Second, as the Head Of State Australia, to foreign governments to allow Australian citizens who bear the Australian passport to enter and travel freely within their countries "without let and hinderance".
However, what happens to that request when the Governor-General himself, as head of state, promulgates laws that prevent Australian citizens who bear the passport from travelling freely into Australia?
Has he not then deceived foreign nations into taking in Australian citizens, only to have them stay in the host country for an indeterminate amount of time?
Then, should not the foreign nations involved simply cease to oblige his request, thus invalidating the Australian passport?
Be that all as it may be, as explained below, no foreign nation is obliged to pay for the maintenance of the citizens of some other country, especially when the citizens of that country have been prevented from returning to their own country by their own government.
TO BE READ WITH
Sunday, July 4, 2021
Australian politicians rely on foreign nations to fund their Zero Covid policy-foreign nations ought to start sending them the bill, and deporting stranded Australian citizens & PRs
by Ganesh Sahathevan
While the Federal Court in Newman v The Commonwealth has clearly and unequivocally decided that Australian citizens have no right of return to Australia given the emergency powers granted the Commonwealth pursuant to the provisions of the Biosecurity Act , the Commonwealth does have an obligation to the international community of which it remains a part of, despite the closing of its borders.
Being a hitherto responsible member of that community is what gives meaning to these words found in Australian passports:
The Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, being the representative in Australia of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, requests all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer, an Australian Citizen, to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford him or her every assistance and protection of which he or she may stand in need.
The words to afford him or her every assistance and protection of which he or she may stand in need can only have meaning if the Australian Government honours its legal and moral obligations to its citizens. Not doing so, as is the case in Newman where the assumption that one can return to one's home country has been in the words of counsel for the Commonwealth Craig Lenehan overcome by "legislative bulldozer" means that the burden falls to a foreign nation. In a world of limited resources all nations are expected to care for their own, and cannot be expected to take on the burden of others as well.
Australian state and Commonwealth leaders appear to have disregarded that economic obligation to ensure that a foreign nation is not burdened with the care of Australian citizens. That obligation exists regardless of the legal position in Australia and disregarding it will harm Australia's standing within the international community. It can then be expected that Australian citizens travelling abroad would be expected to post bond to ensure that the countries they visit are not burdened with the care that would normally be assumed by the Australian Government.
The problem becomes obvious when for example Australian citizens are prevented by acts of the Australian Government from returning to Australia when their visas to remain in a foreign country expires. Deportation would be the normal course of action but that becomes virtually impossible when the home country shuts it borders to everyone including its own citizens.
TO BE READ WITH
Reducing arrivals into Australia: Brilliant political strategy by PM ScoMo , and now off to church to pray that foreign countries do not start deporting Australian overstayers; no reason why foreign nations would want to fund ScoMo & premiers' chances of re-election
No comments:
Post a Comment