I have always been against a Bill of Rights for Australia, and I am no fan of Geoffrey Roberston; but, I like to read what the 'enemy' is thinking.

Strangely enough, what Robertson has to say didn't disturb me all that much UNTIL I arrived at his Article 19 ‘The right to democracy’ (voting) or, rather, his following notes on P.200 of the book:

"Extending the franchise and the right to stand for Parliament to certain persons who have not taken out citizenship may be controversial, but if they are residents or taxpayers they do have a stake in the country, and in the case of politicians the talent pool should be kept as deep as possible.”

This subject was brought up in the main forum by a non-citizen wife of an Australian. Many people were appalled, and as far as I remember, few agreed.

It’s one thing for an unknown person to come up with what I think is an appalling suggestion, another thing entirely when Australia’s best known lawyer – even though he doesn’t care to live in his own country – to suggest it as a criterion for an Australian Bill of Rights. Robertson hopes that his views will be discussed.

What say you?

PS. The book is a good read, in his usual style, whether or not you agree with him.

The book is "The Statute of Liberty", nothing to do with statues.

Leigh
I quite like Geoffrey Robertson's style too even if I don't always agree with him. He was an excellent choice as host of the Hypothetical series because of his appearance of impartiality and his enquiring mind which made us all think outside the square.

As far as Robertson's self-admitted controversial statement about non-citizens being able to stand for Parliament I would have to disagree. Non-citizens may have a stake but this factor alone does not necessarily imply a Right. Two very different things.

Taxes are an economic mechanism to pay for government provided services from which we all benefit at some time. Paying taxes is not a prerequisite to Rights other than to know how the tax dollars are spent.

Surely making a commitment to the country you reside is of prime importance to those other citizens you wish to represent.

Dear Leigh,

I used to enjoy watching Geoffrey Robertson's
"Hypothetical," on TV. And Thanks for the book
reference, I'm not familiar with it, but will
check it out of my local library.

I don't agree with non-citizens being elected
to Parliament. I think that in order to be an
elected representative you have to make a
commitment to this country. To pledge loyalty,
to the country and its people, to share their
democratic beliefs, to respect their rights and
liberties and uphold and obey its laws.

Citizenship is a privilege - and how can a non-
citizen be a government representative when they
haven't made the required commitment?

Leigh writes:

"This subject was brought up in the main forum by a non-citizen wife of an Australian. Many people were appalled, and as far as I remember, few agreed."

You understate matters, Leigh. Twelve posters commented upon the article 'Three arguments in favour of non-citizen voting rights', by Susan Giblin. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8778&page=0 . Not one agreed with her.

Susan Giblin subsequently, and unprecedentedly, wrote an article 'Reflections on my first experience of writing for 'On Line Opinion''. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8898&page=0 . Comments were made by 27 different posters to this article. Of those posts that were in response to the article, there was little, if any, hostility expressed toward the author. If anything, the general tone was encouraging of Susan Giblin to present more or better arguments if she had them, and not to be put off by perceived negativity.

Leigh also writes:

"It’s one thing for an unknown person to come up with what I think is an appalling suggestion, another thing entirely when Australia’s best known lawyer – even though he doesn’t care to live in his own country – to suggest it as a criterion for an Australian Bill of Rights. Robertson hopes that his views will be discussed. What say you?"

I reckon there is a kite being flown, Leigh. Entertaining and all as Geoffrey Robinson may be, he is a lawyer. As such his focus is upon winning an argument, not upon living with the outcomes his skill as an advocate may set in train. His not living in Australia only serves to emphasise his personal immunity from any ill effects that may arise were his proposals to be adopted. I reckon Geoffrey Robinson personifies the Australian 'elite', an 'elite' distinguished by its disdain for the requirements of the Constitution, and demonstrated unwillingness to comply with them.

I hope his views receive the rubbishing they richly deserve. Why allow our vote to be diluted by enfranchising who knows whom?

Put it to a Referendum!

Yes, Pelican, Foxy and Forrest, I believe the idea of non-citizen voting really cheapens the value of any country's citizenship and, as said, Robertson could be kite flying.

If you do read the book, you won't find any suggestion of the simple 'right' for Australians to decide by referendum whether or not they want a Bill of Rights. A bit odd? At the moment we have a 4 person committee looking into the idea.

You will also find (the UK/European model is Robertson's preferred base - he says that Australians would not be comfortable with the full-blooded U.S. freedom of speech) a few inconsitencies. He talks of judges 'striking down' (he loves that) legislation, then talks about parliament remaining supreme and not having to take any notice anyway. He also debunks the greedy lawyer criticisms by saying that lawyers should not be needed, the language of legislation being understandable by all, and open only to individulas to raise anyway, except where groups feel their rights have been denied. Public servants would be trained in the legistlation, and they would have to comply - no access to courts needed.

I'm still not convinced that we need a Bill of Rights and, if the idea goes further than the current committee, only a decision via referendum by Austalians is acceptable, and I don't think governments of other countries actually asked their citizens.

And, yes. He does eventually get around to mentioning the 'unmentionable' - obligations! And, he will be making a formal submission on the matter, and he has had a lot of influence globally. He needs watching.

A bill of rights should be tempered with a bill of responsibilities.Within that bill should be defined both the rights and responsibilites of the individual,Govt and the Corporates.

Arjay,

Definitely. As I said, Roberston has included obligations in his book. I hope he includes them in his submission. I don't remember any pro-B of R commentator referring to obligations before.

Leigh,
The book is called 'Statute of Liberty' as in laws of liberty.

I'd also suggest that a number of your statements are conditional on your knowledge of Australian Barristers and on GR. Check out his job. Consider Garreth Evans and his job.

As for commitment to Australia... a large number of born here Australians their only commitment is to themselves and what's in it for them.

Yep, I think we should definitely not allow non-Australian citizens the vote.

And they should be taxed at 100%, too.

Why should they be allowed to take good money from honest Aussie families, and the bread from the mouths of our very own children?

And they shouldn't be allowed to use our hospitals and schools either, sponging off the system like some kind of.. of... of foreigner.

In fact, why should we let any of them in at all? They only want to take advantage of our good nature and the bountiful fruits of our wide brown land without actually doing anything for it. Bunch of bludgers, that's what they are.

We've already had enough problems, what with the Irish and the Greeks and the Italians and the Vietnamese and the Chinese and the Irish - did I mention the Irish? Well then.

Australia for Aussies, that's what I say.

And I'd be prepared to wrap myself in a flag and run round the footy paddock on any Saturday arvo, just to show how Aussie I really am.

And proud of it.

The very idea that any johnny-foreigner should actually have an opinion worth listening to, is just laughable in itself.

And don't get me started about those abos.

Pericles,
I afraid I misjudged you.
You're finally starting to make sense.

I'm glad to see that Pericles is so patriotic.So in the name of patriotism Kevin Rudd should issue a currency backed by Aussie toil/resources and not borrow from international banking cartels who create money based on nothing.

What are your thoughts Pericles on backing our own currency based on real wealth?

Arjay, you have proved beyond a skerrick of doubt on other threads that you haven't the faintest clue about currency, international banking cartels or indeed what money is. I also hear that you have trouble finding Wally.

So I strongly suggest that you keep quiet on the topic.

Meanwhile, I think you'll find Wally in the bottom right hand corner - ah yes, there he is.

Clever boy.

So the great Pericles is right and Presidents ,Abraham Lincoln,Andrew Jackson,John Kennedy and even Woodrow Wilson were all wrong when they warned of the evils of the US Federal Reserve and the risks that they pose to our freedoms.

The revolution has begun in the US headed by Dr Ron Paul and many others.A fairer system will rise form the ashes and the world will be a better place without the parasites.

I expect that one day, Arjay, it is possible that you will support your assertions with some sound references...

>>So the great Pericles is right and Presidents ,Abraham Lincoln,Andrew Jackson,John Kennedy and even Woodrow Wilson were all wrong when they warned of the evils of the US Federal Reserve and the risks that they pose to our freedoms.<<

...but if history is our guide, hell will freeze over first.

It is a simple expectation for those who decide who will stand to represent Australians should be “Australians”.

Anyone who is not sufficiently committed to Australia to acquire citizenship, for whatever reason, puts themselves beyond qualifying to vote and participate in elections of representatives at any level.

Regarding the comment “As for commitment to Australia... a large number of born here Australians their only commitment is to themselves and what's in it for them.”

It is an easy thing for someone to make blanket criticism of other Australians without presenting any justifiable data (which I think qualifies the comment simply as an ad hominine) but when we scratch the surface of this comment we just need to ask the question

“So what?”

As Australians we are free to make our own choices and are not accountable to the expectations of the, obviously ignorant and possibly alien, who parade around proclaiming some self-righteous entitlement to question the motives of their peers and betters -

and that is part and parcel of being "Australian" - I suppose it would be too much to ask for that those who take it to themselves to criticise, should first understand the rights and values they are criticising including the right of other folk to make their own choices.

Pericles I think you have misunderstood the premise of the argument.

It is not about foreign born people not being able to vote it is non-citizens like backpackers or those testing the waters in Australia before they commit to staying.

I meant in my last post "not being able to vote or stand for election"

Otherwise it just does not make sense.