I understand and sympathise with the sentiment but not the reasoning of the author.

It is not a given that the applicant may actually be successful in their application for citizenship. There has to be a rite of passage, if you like to gain the right to vote in democratic elections. Otherwise anyone can move here, never commit to citizenship and continue to influence the outcome of elections.

The fact that a foreign visitor or a citizenship applicant may pay tax is irrelevant in my view. Citizenship applicants pay tax for the same reason we do - because they are accessing public services like public transport, roads, hospitals and maybe even the protection of our police etc.

Interesting thoughts, but I disagree for a few reasons:
(1) It is more important to grant enfranchisement to youth, who can be sent to prison, grant sexual consent, drive a car, sign contracts, etc, but not vote.

(2) Citizenship is boolean: yes/no, so it's easy to use that as a basis for enfranchisement. Personally, I'd argue against being able to vote in more than one nation-state at any given time, as dual-citizenship seems ugly.

(3) There is a way non-citizens (even non-residents!) can have far greater influence on political directions than with the vote (and I'm not talking about under-the-counter political donations): make public submissions to inquiries.

Consider: if an Israeli cluster-bomb manufacturer's submission, which was little more than a product flyer with a cover letter, was accepted as a submission into the cluter munitions prohibition bill inquiry a couple of years back, then almost anything goes. More usefully and recently, a team of US Law Profs, and a Swedish quango made great submissions to the Senate Inquiry into Gene Patents.

If the non-citizen would-be elector considers the influence of a single vote (especially in a non-marginal seat), then compares that to the effect of an on-the-public-record archived-forever submission to an inquiry provides (whether parliamentary or departmental, and especially if it is an early submission so others can refer to it when developing their own submissions), then enfranchisement looks pretty useless.

So... has the author demonstrated any interest in the direction of Australian political policy by making a submission to any inquiry? Not being facetious, but I'd be interested to know, especially as there have been so many inquiries to choose from in the last few years of worldwide significance (Carbon trading, Citizenship Testing, Climate Policy, Gene Patents, just to name a few). If not, why not?

Daggett, I don't believe you.

I did hope I might get some lady to have a go at the grandFATHER bit, but I never expected anyone could take the whole post seriously.

I suppose you do vote in our elections.

Speaking as an immigrant, I had voting rights immediately upon arrival. That is because, at the time of my migration, I was English (although this rule has changed since) and not the citizen of a country who took it upon itself to fight against British authority.

Generally, it is wholly appropriate for only those who make the effort demonstrate acceptance of the Australian way of life, through submitting themselves for citizenship and embracing Australia, rather than holding fealty to some alien state, to be allowed to vote in public elections.

Lets face it the citizenship exam is not that tough (even for the Irish)

So for every three good reason in support of the motion, I could think of six against it..

Hasbeen wrote, "... I never expected anyone could take the whole post seriously."

Call me stupid, but I took your post to be a parody of how people opposed to high immigration (such as myself) might express themselves.

If I am mistaken, then I apologise.

---

I note Susan Giblin has written another article, "Reflections on my first experience of writing for 'On Line Opinion'" at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8898&page=0 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8898&page=0 in which she seems critical of responses to her article including, presumably, mine.

I think Susan should have argued her case on this forum.

---

Susan writes in the other article, "My impetus to write the article came when I found myself voteless for the first time in my life. ... I felt voiceless and disempowered and I had a yearning to do something positive about it. I set to work doing some research, writing the short article and submitting it to On Line Opinion."

In fact many Australians with voting rights are disempowered. Look at how the Tweed Shire residents are being treated by their own local council in "Nightmare 'Nightcap' Development approved in Tweed Shire" at http://candobetter.org/node/1257

A massive highly inappropriate residential development, for which the Council received only one submission in favour and hundreds against, was approved on Tuesday Night by a council, the majority of which was elected on a pro-environment platform.

The views of local residents are being completely disregarded.

And they are also being disregarded in regard to a Car Rally scheduled for September this and which was organised secretively behind their backs and sprung on them at the last minute (See http://candobetter.org/NoRepcoRally).

This is an all too common experience in this country, today.

Those without jobs or in jobs for which they are overqualified, thanks to record high immigration, or who are forced to rent in a market that has become hyper-inflated, also thanks to to record high immigration, are even more disempowered than the rest of us.

First Point:
Should anybody buying any product that attracts tax in any country be eligible to vote in that country?
Does airport tax paid in transit count?
Or should it only be based on income tax? Why?
At what level of income tax paid should voting rights apply?
When income falls so that no tax is paid should voting rights be taken away?
Second Point:
In Australia up to 2009 children do not have voting rights.
"Is refusing voting rights to (children) in the community something we will look back on as unjust?"
We cannot disenfranchise children on the basis of them not working because unemployed and retired adults have the right to vote.
There are surely some 17 year olds with greater political awareness than some 70 year olds.
They will also be potentially more affected by political decisions with long term implications.
Why not let children vote?
Third Point:
Why should people have voting rights just because they "live and contribute to a community"?
What does contribute mean? Spend money? Work?
Who will decide what level of contribution earns voting rights?

Shouldn't voting rights be reserved for those who bear allegiance to a country by way of birth or citizenship pledge?