Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Sunday 12 May 2019
Illegal net fishing on Clarence River costs fisherman $18,000
The Daily Examiner, 7 May 2019, p.4:
If you think illegal net
fishing is no big deal, you may be about to get tangled up in a very expensive
process.
The warning comes from
NSW Department of Primary Industries Fisheries on the North Coast as they
successfully prosecuted commercial fisherman from Iluka over seven illegal
fishing offences in two years.
And the cost to him?
More than $18,000 in fines and professional fees.
DPI director of
fisheries compliance, Patrick Tully said all matters in relation to the
offences were heard in court on April 10, with the offender convicted of all
charges.
“This offender has
incurred significant penalties related to the illegal use of nets in the waters
of the lower Clarence River on two separate occasions in 2017 and 2018,” Mr
Tully said.
“In November 2017, the
offender failed to stop his vehicle when requested by Fisheries officers who
then pursued him to his residence where they found him to be in possession of
an illegal net and a number of fish taken illegally by that net. Then in April
2018, the offender was found using a net by illegal methods.
“On both occasions the
nets and illegally taken fish were seized by DPI Fisheries officers.”
The man, a repeat
offender, was convicted on all six fishing-related offences and one of
obstructing fisheries officers. He was also required to pay the department’s
professional costs….
Anyone with information
on suspected illegal fishing activity is urged to contact their local DPI
Fisheries office, call the Fisher Watch phone line on 1800043536 or report
illegal fishing activities online.
Labels:
Clarence River,
fishing,
law
Thursday 2 May 2019
The Trouble with Water: National Party conflicts of interest and the rising odour of corruption
The
Saturday Paper,
27 April 2019:
Former Australian
Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty is examining links between political
donations and the issuing and buyback of agricultural water licences, amid
concerns that undeclared conflicts of interest could be fuelling corruption.
Keelty told The
Saturday Paper this week he is concerned about the extent of undeclared
conflicts of interest among politicians, lobby groups and businesses operating
in the water market.
“I’m interested to see
how conflicted politicians are declaring their conflicts of interest when
decisions are made about water policy,” he said.
“Where you get those
conflicts of interest and they’re not addressed, that’s ripe for corruption.”
His comments come as the
Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder confirmed to The Saturday Paper that
two contentious water licences for which the federal government paid
$79 million have returned next to no water to the environment since they
were purchased two years ago.
Keelty is conducting
inquiries in his capacity as the Northern Basin commissioner for the
Murray–Darling Basin, a position to which the federal agriculture minister,
David Littleproud, appointed him in August last year with the support of the
Labor opposition.
On the issue of water
licences, he draws a direct comparison with the management of development
applications by local government, where conflicts of interest are required to
be declared.
“We’re not seeing it in
water, and it should be there,” he said.
Keelty, who was also the
inaugural chair of the Australian Crime Commission, is not categorical about
what exposing such conflicts might reveal, though he suggests they are
widespread.
“I’m not saying it’s
corruption; I’m saying it’s conflict of interest,” he said. “But you could draw
a conclusion that if conflicts of interest aren’t transparent, it could lead to
corruption … Water is now the value of gold. If you have corruption in other
elements of society, if you have corruption in other areas of business, why
wouldn’t you have it here, when water is the same price as gold?”
“IT IS NOT AS TRANSPARENT AS I FIRST THOUGHT AND IT IS
MUDDIED BY IN-KIND DONATIONS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPANIES OR ENTITIES THAT ARE
CREATED TO OBSCURE WHO THE REAL DONORS ARE.”
Over the past decade,
Keelty has undertaken inquiries and investigations for various governments on
issues relating to integrity in government policy, especially in emergency
management.
Now turning his
attention to the struggling river system, he is aiming to improve transparency
in the management of the northern Murray–Darling Basin, which has a far worse
compliance record than the river system’s southern half.
His task is to ensure
that water gets back to the river system where it is needed and that those who
rely on this water, and should have rights for its use, are not being ripped
off, especially disenfranchised Indigenous communities and others living
downstream.
Keelty argues that
excessive numbers of water licences have been issued – sometimes on
questionable grounds – and are seriously damaging the river.
“When you look at it
strategically, there are too many licences having been allocated for the amount
of water that is available,” he told The Saturday Paper.
“Nobody is addressing
that, that I can see.”
Keelty also believes the
system is too dependent on property owners acting within the law and reporting
their own activities.
“The system relies on
honesty and integrity but if you look at the number of prosecutions and
infringement notices issued in New South Wales in the last 12 months, the
pillar of honesty doesn’t appear to be that strong,” he said.
“I can understand the
suspicion and the frustration in the southern basin states because they are
directly impacted by the efficiency of the systems in the northern basin.”
Keelty is currently
examining the Australian Electoral Commission records of political donations,
checking links between donors, decision-makers and recipients of water licences
or sales contracts.
“Clearly the National
Party is probably, I guess, a glaring example of where politicians could be
conflicted because their constituency are the very people who are using the
water and the very people who are lobbying about water policy,” he said.
But he is examining
links to other parties as well. “It’s not just the National Party. Different
governments will make decisions about water policy that presumably benefit
their state and their constituents.”
Keelty has concerns
about the system of political donations more broadly.
“It is not as
transparent as I first thought and it is muddied by in-kind donations and
third-party companies or entities that are created to obscure who the real
donors are,” he said. “I’ve found it more difficult and less transparent than
what most of us probably think it is.”
The former police chief
is also arguing for proceeds-of-crime legislation to be more clearly linked to
offences in the water market because he believes the risk of losing a farming
property would be a significant deterrent.
“Where you can prosecute
criminal charges for offending, it makes sense to have parallel action in
proceeds of crime because that will have more of an impact than perhaps some of
the civil charges that are being used to remedy the situation to date,” he
said.
Read the full article here
Wednesday 1 May 2019
Facebook spends more than a decade expressing contrition for its actions and avowing its commitment to people’s privacy – but refuses constructive action
“It is
untenable that organizations are allowed to reject my office’s legal findings
as mere opinions. Facebook should not get to decide what Canadian privacy law
does or does not require.” [Canandian Privacy Commissioner Daniel
Therrien, 25 April 2019]
Facbook Inc. professes that it has taken steps to ensure the intregrity of political discourse on its platform, but rather tellingly will not roll out transparency features in Australia that it has already rolled out in the US, UK, Eu, India, Israel and Ukraine.
The only measure it commits to taking during this federal election campaign is to temporarily ban people outside Australiabuying ads that Facebook determines are “political”.
So it should come as no surprise that Canada issued this three page news release…….
Office of the Privacy Commission of
Canada, news
release, 25 April 2019:
Facebook refuses to
address serious privacy deficiencies despite public apologies for “breach of
trust”
Joint investigation
finds major shortcomings in the social media giant’s privacy practices,
highlighting pressing need for legislative reform to adequately protect the
rights of Canadians
OTTAWA, April 25,
2019 – Facebook committed serious contraventions of Canadian privacy laws
and failed to take responsibility for protecting the personal information of
Canadians, an investigation has found.
Despite its public
acknowledgement of a “major breach of trust” in the Cambridge Analytica
scandal, Facebook disputes the investigation findings of the Privacy
Commissioner of Canada and the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British
Columbia. The company also refuses to implement recommendations to address
deficiencies.
“Facebook’s refusal to
act responsibly is deeply troubling given the vast amount of sensitive personal
information users have entrusted to this company,” says Privacy Commissioner of
Canada Daniel Therrien. “Their privacy framework was empty, and their vague
terms were so elastic that they were not meaningful for privacy protection.
“The stark contradiction
between Facebook’s public promises to mend its ways on privacy and its refusal
to address the serious problems we’ve identified – or even acknowledge that it
broke the law – is extremely concerning.”
“Facebook has spent more
than a decade expressing contrition for its actions and avowing its commitment
to people’s privacy,” B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy
says, “but when it comes to taking concrete actions needed to fix transgressions
they demonstrate disregard.”
Commissioner McEvoy says
Facebook’s actions point to the need for giving provincial and federal privacy
regulators stronger sanctioning power in order to protect the public’s
interests. “The ability to levy meaningful fines would be an important starting
point,” he says.
The findings and
Facebook’s rejection of the report’s recommendations highlight critical
weaknesses within the current Canadian privacy protection framework and
underscore an urgent need for stronger privacy laws, according to both
Commissioners.
“It is untenable that
organizations are allowed to reject my office’s legal findings as mere
opinions,” says Commissioner Therrien.
In addition to the power
to levy financial penalties on companies, both Commissioners say they should
also be given broader authority to inspect the practices of organizations to
independently confirm privacy laws are being respected. This measure would be
in alignment with the powers that exist in the U.K. and several other countries.
Giving the federal
Commissioner order-making powers would also ensure that his findings and
remedial measures are binding on organizations that refuse to comply with the
law.
The complaint that
initiated the investigation followed media reports that Facebook had allowed an
organization to use an app to access users’ personal information and that some
of the data was then shared with other organizations, including Cambridge
Analytica, which was involved in U.S. political campaigns.
The app, at one point
called “This is Your Digital Life,” encouraged users to complete a personality
quiz. It collected information about users who installed the app as well as
their Facebook “friends.” Some 300,000 Facebook users worldwide added the app,
leading to the potential disclosure of the personal information of
approximately 87 million others, including more than 600,000 Canadians.
The investigation
revealed Facebook violated federal and B.C. privacy laws in a number of
respects. The specific deficiencies include:
Unauthorized access
Facebook’s superficial
and ineffective safeguards and consent mechanisms resulted in a third-party
app’s unauthorized access to the information of millions of Facebook users.
Some of that information was subsequently used for political purposes.
Lack of meaningful
consent from “friends of friends”
Facebook failed to
obtain meaningful consent from both the users who installed the app as well as
those users’ “friends,” whose personal information Facebook also disclosed.
No proper oversight over
privacy practices of apps
Facebook did not
exercise proper oversight with respect to the privacy practices of apps on its
platform. It relied on contractual terms with apps to protect against
unauthorized access to user information; however, its approach to monitoring
compliance with those terms was wholly inadequate.
Overall lack of
responsibility for personal information
A basic principle of
privacy laws is that organizations are responsible for the personal information
under their control. Instead, Facebook attempted to shift responsibility for
protecting personal information to the apps on its platform, as well as to
users themselves.
The failures identified
in the investigation are particularly concerning given that a 2009
investigation of Facebook by the federal Commissioner’s office also found
contraventions with respect to seeking overly broad, uninformed consent for
disclosures of personal information to third-party apps, as well as inadequate
monitoring to protect against unauthorized access by those apps.
If Facebook had
implemented the 2009 investigation’s recommendations meaningfully, the risk of
unauthorized access and use of Canadians’ personal information by third party
apps could have been avoided or significantly mitigated.
Facebook’s refusal to
accept the Commissioners’ recommendations means there is a high risk that the
personal information of Canadians could be used in ways that they do not know
or suspect, exposing them to potential harms.
Given the extent and
severity of the issues identified, the Commissioners sought to implement
measures to ensure the company respects its accountability and other privacy
obligations in the future. However, Facebook refused to voluntarily submit to
audits of its privacy policies and practices over the next five years.
The Office of the
Privacy Commissioner of Canada plans to take the matter to Federal Court to
seek an order to force the company to correct its privacy practices.
The Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner for B.C. reserves its right under
the Personal Information Protection Act to consider future actions
against Facebook.
Related documents:
* Note: my yellow highlighting
Nor should this alleged 'mistake' made by Facebook cause surprise.......
The
New York Times,
25 April 2019:
SAN FRANCISCO — The New
York State attorney general’s office plans to open an investigation into
Facebook’s unauthorized collection of more than 1.5 million users’ email
address books, according to two people briefed on the matter.
The inquiry concerns a practice
unearthed in April in which Facebook harvested the email contact lists of a
portion of new users who signed up for the network after 2016, according to the
two people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the inquiry had not
been officially announced.
Those lists were then
used to improve Facebook’s ad-targeting algorithms and other friend connections
across the network.
The investigation was
confirmed late Thursday afternoon by the attorney general’s office.
“Facebook has repeatedly
demonstrated a lack of respect for consumers’ information while at the same
time profiting from mining that data,” said Letitia James, the attorney general
of New York, in a statement. “It is time Facebook is held accountable for how
it handles consumers’ personal information.”…
Users were not notified
that their contact lists were being harvested at the time. Facebook shuttered
the contact list collection mechanism shortly after the issue was discovered by
the press…..
Facebook Inc's rapacious business practices has been the death of online privacy and now threatens the democratic process.
Labels:
data breach,
data mining,
Facebook,
information technology,
Internet,
law,
privacy,
safety
Sunday 10 February 2019
And now for some good news......
David Morris, CEO of EDO NSW: Our argument was based on science, economics and – we argued - the
proper application of the law. The climate contention as a ground for refusing
this mine was innovative; the first time climate change has been addressed this
way in an Australian court using the concept of a carbon budget as its basis.
Like so many great ideas – its strength was its
simplicity. While there was lots of necessary evidence and discussion about the
carbon budget, geopolitical climate policy and Australia’s legal framework for
climate change, ultimately our argument was simple: if you accept
the science, then the local legal framework compels you to refuse the mine
because it’s clearly not in the public interest to increase emissions.
As Professor Steffen said “it’s one atmosphere,
it’s one climate system, it’s one planet - and so we need to start thinking
more carefully about the net effect of wherever coal is burnt, or oil or gas…
The project’s contribution to cumulative climate change impacts means that its
approval would be inequitable for current and future generations”. [EDO NSW, media release, 8 February 2019]
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
8 February 2019:
When Planning
Minister Anthony Roberts intervened a year ago to give a coal miner
the unusual right to challenge its project's refusal in court, neither would
have countenanced Friday's outcome.
Instead of settling the
future of Gloucester Resources' controversial Rocky Hill coal mine near
Gloucester, the NSW Land and Environment Court just cast a cloud over coal mining
in general.
The miner had thought it
was merely challenging the Department of Planning's rejection of the mine's
impact on visual amenity in the bucolic valley around Gloucester.
Instead, the
Environmental Defenders Office, acting for residents opposed to the mine,
grabbed the opportunity to join the appeal.
In what EDO chief David
Morris describes as a "delicious irony", the court got to hear about
the project's detrimental impact on climate change and the town's social fabric
- despite Gloucester Resources arguing such intervention would be a
"sideshow and a distraction".
Future generations will
wonder why it took so long for any court in the land to hear such evidence when
considering a coal mine project.
But Justice Brian
Preston didn't just allow the EDO to provide expert evidence of the role
greenhouse gas emissions play in driving climate change. He also accepted it as
part of the critical reasons to reject the mine. "The decision forms part
of what
is a growing trend around the world on using litigation to fight
climate change," Martijn Wilder, a prominent climate lawyer from
Baker & McKenzie, says. "While early on some of this litigation was
not successful, increasingly it is."
Gloucester
Resources Limited v Minister for Planning [2019] NSWLEC 7, 8 February 2019 judgment here.
Labels:
Berejiklian Government,
climate change,
coal,
court,
law,
mining,
New South Wales
Thursday 31 January 2019
Australian High Court rejects NSW Berejiklian Government's 2018 electoral funding reforms
In May 2018
the NSW Berejiklian Government announced plans to cap election-related spending by unions, environmental
groups, and churches at a maximum of $500,000.
The Electoral Funding
Act 2018 No 20 came into force on 1 July 2018.
In December
2018 five unions joined
Unions NSW in challenging these laws in the High Court of Australia.
Australian
Financial Review,
29 January 2019:
In July 2018, the
Berejiklian Government reduced the amount that unions and other third parties
could spend in the six months before an election from $1.05 million to
$500,000. A political party and it candidates, however, can spend up to $22.6
million if it stands candidates in all 93 seats.
The High Court said NSW
proved that aiming to "prevent the drowning out of voices in the political
process by the distorting influence of money" was a legitimate purpose.
However, it said
"the reduction in the cap applicable to third-party campaigners was not
demonstrated to be reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose".
The court did not accept
NSW's argument that $500,000 was still a substantial sum that would allow third
parties to "reasonably present their case".
The lead judgement of
Chief Justice Susan Kiefel and Justices Virginia Bell and Patrick Keane said
"no enquiry as to what in fact is necessary to enable third-party
campaigners reasonably to communicate their messages appears to have been
undertaken".
The reforms also sought
to ban third parties from acting "in concert" by pooling money into
multi-million-dollar campaigns, such as the "Stop the Sell-off"
campaign against energy privatisation for the 2015 poll. Those who breach the
act would have faced up to 10 years' jail.
Former Commonwealth
solicitor-general Justin Gleeson SC was lead counsel for Unions NSW and the
five unions which also signed up for the challenge.
BACKGROUND
HIGH COURT OF
AUSTRALIA, Judgment
Summary, 18 December 2018:
UNIONS NSW & ORS v
STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES [2013] HCA 58
Today the High Court
unanimously held that ss 96D and 95G(6) of the Election Funding, Expenditure
and Disclosures Act 1981 (NSW) ("the EFED Act") are invalid because
they impermissibly burden the implied freedom of communication on governmental
and political matters, contrary to the Commonwealth Constitution.
Section 96D of the EFED
Act prohibits the making of a political donation to a political party, elected
member, group, candidate or third-party campaigner, unless the donor is an
individual enrolled on the electoral roll for State, federal or local
government elections. The EFED Act also caps the total expenditure that
political parties, candidates and third-party campaigners can incur for
political advertising and related election material. For the purposes of this
cap, s 95G(6) of the EFED Act aggregates the amount spent on electoral
communication by a political party and by any affiliated organisation of that
party. An "affiliated organisation" of a party is defined as a body
or organisation "that is authorised under the rules of that party to
appoint delegates to the governing body of that party or to participate in
pre-selection of candidates for that party (or both)".
Each of the plaintiffs
intends to make political donations to the Australian Labor Party, the
Australian Labor Party (NSW Branch) or other entities, and to incur electoral
communication expenditure within the meaning of the EFED Act. The second, third
and sixth plaintiffs are authorised to appoint delegates to the annual
conference of the Australian Labor Party (NSW Branch) and to participate in the
pre-selection of that party's candidates for State elections. A special case
stated questions of law for determination by the High Court.
The High Court
unanimously held that ss 96D and 95G(6) burdened the implied freedom of
communication on governmental and political matters. The Court held that
political communication at a State level may have a federal dimension. The
Court accepted that the EFED Act had general anti-corruption purposes. However,
the Court held that the impugned provisions were not connected to those
purposes or any other legitimate end.
·
This statement is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the High
Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s reasons
Tuesday 29 January 2019
Wangan and Jagalingou people's fight against foreign mining giant Adani continues into 2019
ABC
News, 25
January 2019:
The United Nations has
asked the Australian Government to consider suspending the Adani project in
central Queensland until it gains the support of a group of traditional owners
who are fighting the miner in court.
A UN committee raised
concerns that the Queensland coal project may violate Indigenous rights under
an international convention against racial discrimination if it goes ahead,
giving Australia until April to formally respond.
Meanwhile, a public
interest legal fund backed by former corruption fighter Tony Fitzgerald has
stepped in with financial backing for a federal court challenge to Adani by its
opponents within the Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J) people.
The Grata Fund, which
boasts the former federal court judge as a patron, agreed to pay a
court-ordered $50,000 bond so W&J representatives can appeal a court ruling
upholding a contentious land access deal secured by the miner.
The UN Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination last month wrote to Australia's UN
ambassador to raise concerns that consultation on Adani's Indigenous Land Use
Agreement (ILUA) "might not have been conducted in good faith".
These allegations
"notably" included that members of the W&J native title claim
group were excluded, and the committee was concerned the project "does not
enjoy free, prior and informed consent of all (W&J) representatives"….
UN committee chair
Noureddine Amir in a letter told Australia's UN ambassador Sally Mansfield the
committee was concerned ILUAs could lead to the "extinction of Indigenous
peoples' land titles" in Australia.
Mr Amir said it was
"particularly concerned" by 2017 changes to native title laws to
recognise ILUAs not signed by all native title claimants, "which appears
to be in contradiction" with an earlier landmark Federal Court ruling.
"Accordingly, the
committee is concerned that, if the above allegations are corroborated, the
realisation of the Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project would infringe the
rights of the Wangan and Jagalingou people, rights that are protected under the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination," Mr Amir said.
The committee gave
Australia until April 8 to outline steps taken to ensure proper consent
"in accordance with Indigenous peoples' own decision-making
mechanisms".
It asked Australia to
"consider suspending" the Adani project until consent was given by
"all Indigenous peoples, including the Wangan and Jagalingou family
council".
It invited Australia to
seek expert advice from the UN experts on Indigenous rights and to
"facilitate dialogue" between the W&J and Adani.
Labels:
Adani Group,
court,
human rights,
law,
mining,
Native Title,
United Nations
Friday 4 January 2019
Australian Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton demonstrates his incompetence yet again
During the
less than one term he served as Australian prime minister Liberal MP for Warringah
Tony Abbott rushed through amendments
to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007
in 2015.
Given that
the Minister for Home Affairs and Liberal MP for Dickson Peter Dutton has used these amendments to strip
Australian citizenship from twelve individuals, the most recent being the revocation of citizenship of a Melbourne-born man currently gaoled in Turkey which
now leaves him stateless1 and, as
the minister has referenced the Citizenship Loss Board in his decision making
perhaps it is time to recall the sketchy details known about this board.
The
Guardian, 22
July 2018:
The identity of
officials on one of the most powerful government boards in Australia – which
has the effective power to strip Australians of citizenship – has been revealed
for the first time.
A
freedom of information request by Guardian Australia for minutes of
the Citizenship Loss Board’s first meeting in February shows the panel is made
up of senior departmental secretaries from across government. The secretariat
of the committee is Hamish Hansford, an assistant secretary of the immigration
department.
He previously served as the national manager of the intelligence
branch of the Australian Crime Commission.
The department of the
prime minister’s counter-terrorism co-ordinator, Greg Moriarty, is also on the
board, as are Gary Quinlan, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade,
Katherine Jones, from the Attorney-General’s Department, and Christopher Dawson
from the Australian Crime Commission.
The immigration
department has by far has the largest number of representatives with five
officers: Rachel Noble, Michael Manthorpe, Maria Fernandez, Michael Outram and
Pip De Veau.
The Australian federal
police and defence department’s members are unknown. Both declined to
participate in the February meeting for undisclosed reasons.
The Australian Security
Intelligence Service (Asis) and Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
(Asio) each have a member. Neither officer is named, listed only as a
“representative”.
The Citizenship Loss
Board has the de facto power
to strip dual nationals of their citizenship under the federal
government’s legislation introduced last year.
Although the law was
touted as an anti-terrorism tool, it left open the possibility that people
who damaged
commonwealth property or even national
security whistleblowers could have their citizenship revoked. Legal
experts have argued it could create a tier of second-class citizenship.
Although the Citizenship
Loss Board appears to be the effective arbiter of this exceptional power, there
is no reference to it in the legislation. None of its members are
parliamentarians or members of the judiciary. It operates in a legal vacuum.
Its recommendations go to the immigration minister with no clear legal mandate.
In theory the board does
not have the express power to revoke citizenship. The laws were built to
withstand judicial scrutiny, describing the key mechanism to remove citizenship
as one of “revocation by conduct” – the argument is that if the law is
“self-executing” this could head off judicial review.
The board’s official
role is to consider cases where an individual’s behaviour meets the criteria to
have citizenship revoked under the law.
This mechanism has been
described by University of New South Wales dean of law George Williams as a
“legal fiction”. He has previously
outlined concerns about the board and the basis for its power. [my yellow highlighting]
Footnote
1. Eligibility requirements for Fijian citizenship which this individual does not currently meet.
http://www.immigration.gov.fj/travel-requirements/fiji-citizenship, retrieved 3 January 2018:
Citizenship by
registration covers six categories of individuals:
The first category
covers children born outside the Fiji islands on or after 10th April 2009 if at
the date of the child’s birth either of the child's parents was a citizen –
section 8(1) of the Citizenship of Fiji Decree 2009.
The second category
covers children under 18 years of age of a foreign nationality that are adopted
by Fiji Citizens – section 8 (2) of the Citizenship of Fiji Decree 2009.
The third category
covers children who were under the age of 18 when either parent became a Fiji
citizen – Section 8(3) of the Citizenship Decree 2009.
The fourth category
covers persons who would have qualified under the previous three categories but
they have reached the age of 18 years. These applicants cannot be granted
citizenship unless they have been lawfully present in Fiji for a total of three
(3) of the five (5) years immediately before the application – Section 8(5) of
the Citizenship of Fiji Decree 2009.
The fifth category
provides for former adult Fiji citizens who wish to regain their Fiji
citizenship. With the introduction of the multiple citizenship policy former
citizens wishing to regain their Fiji citizenship need NOT renounce their other
citizenship – Section 8(6) of the Citizenship of Fiji Decree 2009.
The sixth category
provides for spouses of Fiji citizens. Applicants must have been lawfully
present in Fiji for a total period of three of the five years immediately
before the application – Section 8(7) of the Citizenship of Fiji Decree 2009.
(refer to below checklist for fees and other requirement).
Fijian Government position:
Fijian Government position:
"Neil Prakash has
not been or is a Fijian citizen. For a child of a Fiji
citizen born overseas, the parent has to apply for citizenship for the child to
become a Fiji citizen. The department has searched the immigration system and
confirms that he has not entered the country nor applied for citizenship since
birth." [Head
of Fiji's Immigration Department, Nemani
Vuniwaqa, quoted in ABC
News, 2 January 2018]
Labels:
#MorrisonGovernmentFAIL,
anti-terrorism,
law
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)