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 > Who should we elect to represent us? > Comments

Who should we elect to represent us? : Comments

By David Leyonhjelm, published 21/11/2017

What they had in mind was to avoid a situation where someone in the federal parliament owed allegiance to a country with which Australia had a significant conflict.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Certainly not you.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 21 November 2017 9:32:06 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
Yes David!

And hard to understand this current black letter (infallible) interpretation, in light of the unmistakable intention of the (now foreign) writers of our constitution!

And as written, never ever applicable to citizens of a country that shared our (now foreign) head of state!

And that black letter interpretation, as applied, a veritable can of worms, possibly able to bring down an elected government!

Perhaps we need a referendum to just restore the universally perceived, original intention of the original constitution!

Before the, I believe, conflicted and venerated, aged lawyers got a hold of it?

Moreover, supported by all sides of a bipartisan pragmatic parliament to ensure it's carried; and subsequent, politics free, passage!?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 21 November 2017 9:38:44 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
A simpler solution would be to go back to Australian law not allowing dual-citizenships. I think that would also help make Australia more cohesive.
Posted by SilverInCanberra, Tuesday, 21 November 2017 9:57:42 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
SilverInCanberra,

Yes. Dual citizenship is absurd at all times
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 21 November 2017 10:58:29 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
Whats the betting that this dual-citizen furphy-law will become so Parliamentary destabilising, that:

1. it leads to a Federal Election in the first 6 months of next year?

2. an Election that Labor wins?
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 21 November 2017 12:58:49 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
Rules are made to be broken, so a rule change for something straight forward like this is unnecessary.

What is required is a private enterprise approach. Like a migration facilitator; how easy by comparison, for an enterprise for profit, to research new nominees genealogy?

I don't see a problem here, outside of “too hard basket”
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 21 November 2017 1:06:19 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
Money talks Bu-- Sh-- walks, simply if you have lots of money most countries in the world will give you citizenship.
Posted by Philip S, Tuesday, 21 November 2017 6:40:15 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
Who should we elect to represent us?

People with the ability to develop good policies that bring value to the wider community and the taxpayer.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Thursday, 23 November 2017 7:27:46 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
Who should we elect to represent us?

People with the ability to correctly fill out simple forms.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 23 November 2017 8:53:19 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
There is only one social entity capable of leading 'Australians' and that is a social group that has no allegiance to any other nation on the planet.....the indigenous full blood Aborigine....not an Islander, not a gimme gimme I'm entitled, but a home grown Australian who hasn't time for BS Anglo or otherwise.
Someone whose done the hard yards is guaranteed to put Australia first!....even if the nature of government need to be changed.
Posted by ilmessaggio, Friday, 24 November 2017 2:04:24 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
.

Dear David,

.

There comes a time when there are so many holes in the rusty old bucket that you just can’t fix it anymore.

Our old colonial constitution was drafted in the 1890’s. Population was about 3.5 million in those days. But we are no longer a British colony. We abandoned the White Australia policy in 1973 and have since become one of the world’s most multicultural societies.

According to the federal government web site :

« At Federation in 1901, ‘British subject’ was the sole civic status noted in the Australian Constitution … Throughout the 1960s, Australian citizens were still required to declare their nationality as British. The term ‘Australian nationality’ had no official recognition or meaning until the Act was amended in 1969 and renamed the Citizenship Act. This followed a growing sense of Australian nationalism and the declining importance for Australians of the British Empire. In 1973 the Act was renamed the Australian Citizenship Act. It was not until 1984 that Australian citizens ceased to be British subjects ».

Our rusty old bucket (the constitution) is so old and fragile it is full of holes and beyond repair. Freedom of expression (speech, cartoons, etc.) has fallen through one of them. The Prime Minister has fallen through another one. There is nothing in the constitution about a Prime Minister. It says the British Crown is the head of state.

We tried to patch it up 44 times since it was drafted 120 years ago but only succeeded 8 times.

The only way it can be fixed is by referendum and that’s almost certain to fail. Howard knew that. That’s why he used it to preserve royalty and prevent the country from becoming a republic.

Nevertheless, the only sensible thing to do would be to wrap our old colonial constitution in fine silk tissue paper (just plain white would be nice) to carefully conserve all the dusty bits and pieces - and get a new one.

That won’t happen until we decide to become a republic. For that, we need more non-British Australians.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 27 November 2017 2:02:01 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
Mind reading too David and post-birth mind reading at that!
Posted by Hilily, Tuesday, 28 November 2017 4:41:32 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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