Democracy is government for the people by the people.

The question is who are the people (voters)? The general definition has been citizenship.

This definition has been clear, easy to record and track. To open it up further would be an administrative nightmare, as well as the definition of who could vote would be extremely fuzzy and subject to all sorts of litigation. To this end citizenship has pretty much been accepted as the litmus test.

Also:

-The Boston tea party was about citizens of the colonies not getting the vote or having any prospect of being in the position to do so.

-Citizenship also carries responsibilities (less so recently) in that in war time citizens are often conscripted, which cannot be done with temp residents.

-As for tax, this is recognised by most countries as based on where where you reside (>180 days in a tax year) whether you are working or merely on an extended holiday.

So while Susan's proposal has some merits, it falls firmly in the too hard, too little benefit bin.

Surely there should be some advantages left for being a citizen, to that of non citizens.

Off the top of my head, I can see only two. One is having the right to vote and the other is being eligible for an Australian passport.

A non citizen, with permanent residency can get employment, health benefits and is free to reside anywhere they choose and purchasse property.

Give them the right to vote as well, you have to be kidding! Ok, we are fools for the lax and very high immigration we have, and for letting so many uninvited 'illegals' in as well, but hopefully not that stupid to acceed to the crackpot suggestion of the author.

I wonder if any other country allows non-citizens to vote. I wonder if this woman has thought that countries other than Australia should take up her ratty ideas. Or, has she picked on Australia because she now lives here, with an Australian husband, and knows that Australia is a soft touch – even softer since we have been lumbered with a Labor Government. We are already an international laughing stock, with universities selling visas to overseas students who can barely make themselves understood, and who get privileges no Australian-born students get; and the people-smuggling boats coming almost line astern since the Rudd Government put out the word that it would be easier to enter Australia illegally after Howard.

The quality of contributions to OLO have taken a dive recently. Like Horus, I took a recent look at the General area because of the fall in standards here, only to find Graham Young berating posters for not putting up better subjects.

Graham has said in the past that it is hard to get good contributions from outside, and he asked us not to be rude to contributors for this reason. Since then, the standard has got worse; regular posters have dropped out, and it is damned hard not to be rude to contributors like this one and many others who, at best, keep rehashing subjects that have been done to death.

Perhaps the 10 years that OLO just reached were all it had?

Leigh,

I've noticed that the degree of rudeness is in inverse proportion to the quality of the arguments presented, that's why I'm never rude.

At the time of the Boston Tea Party, British subjects in the American colonies were not having their interests represented within the British Parliament. Today there is emerging a widespread feeling that Australians are not having their interests truly represented within the Australian Parliament.

Indeed, prior to 1948, native-born and naturalized Australians shared without question with persons having the same origin as Susan Giblin the status of British subject, or, in the case of persons from the Irish Republic, an entitlement to such status. Permanent residency here made all such overseas-born British subjects Australians, and if of age, entitled to enrol and vote.

Progressively, over the years, Australian Parliaments purported to alter this birthright of native-born Australians, degrading it to one of mere Australian 'citizenship'. From 25 January 1984, those Parliaments have in a discriminatory fashion purported to disenfranchise an indeterminate number of such permanently resident, but overseas born, British Australians. I say 'purported' because the enactments which have led to this appear unconstitutional. The rider to Section 44, sub-Section (iv), of the Commonwealth Constitution holds the key to that unconstitutionality.

The significance of this conditional disfranchisement of British (and Irish) born Australians may have been that it created a 'grey area' of uncertainty as to the total number of persons qualified for electoral enrollment, such that small-order exceedings of the theoretical maximum might be seemingly satisfactorily explained away, were such ever to become noticed.

Susan Giblin writes:

"In Great Britain, Irish and Commonwealth citizens can vote in national and local elections. ....... I would like to be able to contribute fully. If the most important elections are those where we elect our political representatives I would like to have the opportunity to take part sooner rather than later."

The best contribution you can make Susan, is to thoroughly study the implications of Section 44 (iv)'s rider for Australian citizenship legislation. Then raise the roof about it. Australian Parliaments have betrayed us both and all on this. Here's a start point: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5275#65639

Hope you succeed.

Can I vote in Irish elections then, I can point it out on a Atlas. Hell, perhaps the author can take up my case of not being allowed to become the prez of the USA as well. LOL

There has to be some test for voting rights and citizenship is a good one. I can see any reason to change it. I glad you wish to vote and have an interest in this country, and when you can become a citizen then you can act on it.