The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Strafing parliament: Australia's High Court citizenship ruling > Comments

Strafing parliament: Australia's High Court citizenship ruling : Comments

By Binoy Kampmark, published 30/10/2017

Weeks of predictions, optimistic readings, and hopeful signs were dashed as the members of the highest court of Australia laid waste to members of Parliament.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
A clear cut case of be careful what you wish for and some notable incompetence in some of the tendered advice? This was a trap set to snare a couple of green, Green Senators and caught a few equally green companion trap setters into a bargain for beggars!?

Now that this episode is more or less behind us, anyone not born here and wanting to stand for parliament is on notice! As are they with Parents or Grandparents born elsewhere!

Makes you wonder why they came here in the first place given the weather is always fine elsewhere?

And as for the weather in Dublin?

Ah to be sure, to be sure, it'd be a beautiful, fine, warm, sunny day, were it not for all that wind, rain, snow and ice!

As intended humour, more or less caps this schnozzle? It's over! Other more important, real issues beckon! Get over it!

If you can't stand the heat? Get out of the kitchen!

If you can't stand the cold? Get back in the kitchen!

Refocus and reboot!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 30 October 2017 8:48:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The applicants have come to assume a title more commonly associated with criminal gangs or wrongly accused terrorists”. Tough but true. Many Australians, particularly the Left and others who do not take Australia seriously – anything goes, now – and who do not respect Australian citizenship, are totally insensitive to the gravity of these clowns' transgressions. It is appalling that these people, and probably others like them yet to be revealed, got into Parliament while being so ignorant of the Australian Constitution. There are only two ways to look at them: they are stupid or they are dishonest. Those attributes might be seen jokingly (?) as a prime qualification for the job, what has happened is very, very serious. It could bring down the Government, and maybe it should. The Turnbull farce has gone on too long.

I disagree with Mr.Kampmark that Section 44 is “onerous”; it is a perfectly acceptable and desirable instrument to indicate that Australian-ism and the rights and privileges of citizenship are respected. To date, it just hasn't been enforced. On top of it, we really need to see dual-citizenship abolished. If your country of birth wasn't good enough for you, hanging onto the past is just silly sentimentalism.

It was good to see the High Court apply black letter law to this case. There has been far too much interference with Australian law, values and dignity coming from that quarter in the past. There is nothing “archaic” about Section 44; to suggest there is is anti-Australian, to say the least. Somebody called 'Adrienne Stone' is wrong in her reference to multiculturalism, which itself needs to be abolished if this country is ever again to be something to be proud of. There is nothing “terrific” (which used to mean bad, until the language frauds got to it) about representatives who are not fully committed to Australia. And dual-citizens are not fully committed, no matter what they and the Left thought police rave on about. Thankfully, our Constitution is protected from the thugs by a majority of genuine Australians.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 30 October 2017 9:43:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That is the law and so be it.

It serves as a needed, timely reminder to politicians and the political parties that no-one is above the law.
Posted by leoj, Monday, 30 October 2017 1:12:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How sweet. Multiculturalism fails at the door of the rulers.

I like this author. Very bright.
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 30 October 2017 4:07:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is unforgivably wrong about in all this saga is that the role of the senate, inter alia,is to review bills coming out of the house of represenatives to ensure they are consistent with the requirements of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, but this was obviously done to a very, very poor standard.

This is because if these senators who have resigned, knew the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution as well as they should have, they would have known THEY DID NOT HAVE TO RESIGN if they came from another commonwealth country such as Britian, New zealand, Canada and Ireland.

Why, because they are all COMMONWEALTH countries and the Constitution very speficially states this.

God help us if we have more of these pathetic barxyzs for Senators.

No wonder all past governments since the 1970's will die in battle before they bring in compulsory training in the Australian constitution in ALL schools in Australia.
Posted by Referundemdrivensocienty, Monday, 30 October 2017 8:30:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn,

" On top of it, we really need to see dual-citizenship abolished"

How do we do that when such dual citizenship is often hereditary?
Are we to change the laws of other countries?

In my own case, I hold Irish citizenship by right of descent, not because I applied for it or it was granted to me and it is most convenient when I'm in Europe as I don't need visas.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 30 October 2017 10:48:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, it is unconstitutional to have dual citizens in parliament but it is ok to have an unelected and virtually unaccountable foreign monarch as the nation's head of state. Go figurehead hey!
Posted by minotaur, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 9:31:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
minotaur,

She doesn't vote on day to day things.
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 10:37:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Citizenship - dual or otherwise - is but one way to view commitment to Australia and suitability as a nominee at election time.

What about foreign financial allegiance? I have in mind one very high ranking politician who happens to hold significant investments through entities registered for tax minimisation purposes (aren't they all?) in the Cayman Islands.

This demonstrated allegiance to the Cayman Islands is deeper and more meaningful than anything demonstrated in the cases of the Famous Five.

Constitutional amendment now! When will the referendum be?
Posted by SingletonEngineer, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 1:57:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is Mise, that is true but beside the point. The fact remains that all our elected Federal representatives swear allegiance to the Queen...who is a foreign monarch. They don't swear allegiance to Australia or Australians and that should be an issue that gets far more attention/scrutiny than it does.

It should be noted that when the Constitution was drawn up and implemented there was no such thing as an Australian citizen. Up until the Citizenship Act 1948 came into effect that everyone born in Australia was considered a British citizen. Of course, that 'begs the question' as to just how many previous politicians were in fact dual citizens?
Posted by minotaur, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 3:00:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Minotaur,

Your argument for release from subservience to the Monarch is easy to agree with.

A similar case can be made for removal of the Governor-General.

How many chiefs do the forces need? IIRC, beside the GG (Sir Peter Cosgrove, representing Queen Elizabeth II), there are also the PM (Malcolm Turnbull), a Minister for Defence (Marise Payne), Minister for Defence Industry (Christopher Pyne) and the Chief of the Defence Force (Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin).

That's half a dozen.

Given that Australia no longer has significant industry, Pyne is essentially surplus to requirements, as also QEII and the GG.

That would bring considerable clarity to a confused situation, plus serious cost savings. Plus remedying the current situation, whereby the armed services are beholden to a foreigner.

For further simplification, consider amalgamating the Army, Navy and Air Force with Foreign Affairs, Trade, Border Protection, ASIO and Immigration, all under Peter Dutton. He'd love the role.

Just think of the money that would save!
Posted by SingletonEngineer, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 3:31:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've just read an excellent summation on this issue
in a letter in today's Herald-Sun (31st Oct. 2017)
written by a Graham Williams.

Graham sums things up much better than I could have done
and I agree with him wholeheartedly. He writes:

"The recent High Court decisions highlight the absurdity
of Section 44 of the Constitution. What purpose does it
have?
While federal politicians with dual citizenship are denied
access to top secret data, that same information crosses
the desks of military personnel, civil servants and
contractors, with the same citizenship status on a daily
basis.

Neither the British parliament nor the US Congress, both of
which served as models for the Australian parliament,
prohibit dual citizens from holding public office.

What would the High Court have decided on the fate of some
of our prime ministers, all of whom were eligible for
parliament on the grounds of the constitutional requirement
that they by subjects of the Queen?

That was deemed sufficient a condition for eligibility, but
the High Court has overturned that ruling.

What would have become of Billy Hughes, our wartime prime
minister born in London? How about the Scottish-born
Andrew Fisher or the Staffordshire-born Joseph Cook?

What would the High Court have thought of Chris Watson,
who thought he was born in the UK but was actually born in
Valparaiso, Chile?

Surely, it's time to get rid of this archaic anomaly,
drafted in a bygone era of different standards and
expectations, yet which continues to disrupt the functions
of government."

Hear, Hear!
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 6:31:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
These people will all do what they accuse the unemployed and the poor of doing "blaming someone else." In this case it’s the High Court and even Senator Culleton perhaps.

No doubt Tunbull will do the same thing by blaming Brandis for not advising him that by appointing someone to advocate for a republic he is likely to be guilty of sabotage of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution under the Crimes Act:

"In pursuant as to CRIMES ACT 1914 – SECT 24AA Treachery (1) A person shall not: (a) do any act or thing with intent: (i) to overthrow the Constitution of the Commonwealth by revolution or sabotage."

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s24aa.html
Posted by Referundemdrivensocienty, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 9:42:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
minotaur,

"The fact remains that all our elected Federal representatives swear allegiance to the Queen...who is a foreign monarch."

The fact that she is also monarch of a foreign country in no way negates the fact that she is the Monarch of the Commonwealth of Australia and it is to her as the Queen of Australia that allegiance is sworn.

Foxy,

You can dig up all the references to those that got away with it or whose election would have been in doubt, but the fact remains that the current crop were caught out by their own deliberate flouting of the law or by their ignorance and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Ignorance of the Australian Constitution is inexcusable for a politician.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 1 November 2017 11:22:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Is Mise,

The law should be changed.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 1 November 2017 2:32:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is Mise, you state; 'The fact that she is also monarch of a foreign country in no way negates the fact that she is the Monarch of the Commonwealth of Australia and it is to her as the Queen of Australia that allegiance is sworn.'

The 'Queen of Australia' is a foreigner...she holds no Australian citizenship and would be ineligible to vote, let alone stand for parliament. Yet, despite that, our politicians are forced to swear allegiance to her. Can you not see the problem with that?

Australia is no longer a colony of Great Britain and since the dual passing of the Australia Act 1986 in the parliaments of GB and Australia 'we' are supposed to be an independent nation. A truly independent nation would not have its politicians (and others) swear allegiance to a foreign monarch. It is infantile and embarrassing.
Posted by minotaur, Wednesday, 1 November 2017 3:44:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy