"Turnbull says Scott Ludlam's citizenship oversight is 'remarkable'"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-15/turnbull-speaks-about-scott-ludlams-exit-from-parliament/8712088

Introducing the imperious Mr Ludlum. Who would still be polishing a Senate seat were it not for a civic-minded barrister.

He has more front than Woolworths.

Is so slippery you can't keep your eyes on him.

Has a hide thicker than a NT buffalo.

He will be back, but of course...

Scott Numbnuts was a bitch to Bob Day when he was in the same position. This is Karma.

"Attorney-General George Brandis says he won’t be shedding any tears for former Greens senator Scott Ludlam following his resignation on Friday.

Senator Brandis indicated Mr Ludlam could be forced to repay his senator’s salary and allowances after running for the Senate at three elections despite still being a New Zealand citizen and therefore ineligible to hold office. “Mr Ludlam, as he now is and as it turns out always was, through his own negligence has got himself into this trouble,” Senator Brandis told Sky News.

“He knew he was born in New Zealand obviously when he stood for Parliament. He must be taken to have been aware of the constitution and yet he never took the trouble to ensure that he had relinquished his New Zealand citizenship.”

Senator Brandis said Mr Ludlam was a “very ungracious” colleague who had been “extremely mean spirited” towards former Family First senator Bob Day, who was forced to resign last year after becoming bankrupt. “I don’t think we should shed too many tears over the consequences of Mr Ludlam’s own negligence,” he said."

As i have been saying for years gw high priest have adopted their religion as a mask for inner corruption.

it is made plain in simple words in the Candidates Handbook and in application forms.

It will be interesting who steps forward to shield and excuse, or even criticise the rules. Or to dump on the publicly spirited whistleblower, who should get an Australian Honour for acting to protect the Constitution and democracy.

One can only imagine what action any government of the day would be taking against a claimant for benefits, an ordinary member of the public, who broke the rules for nine years, pocketing large sums in the process.

This article came across my computer the other day. Quite sobering where our society is going. Perhaps the players should ber banned for life committing these offences. But Read on!

WHICH SPORT IS WORST HAVING:

36 have been accused of spouse abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad cheques
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71, repeat 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits and
84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

Can you guess which organization this is? AFL? NRL?
Give up yet? . . .. . Scroll down

Neither,

It's the 535 members of the
AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT in CANBERRA

The same group of Idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year, designed to keep the rest of us in line

Another crook! He should be made to pay back every cent he has gained from the Australian taxpayer. But, of course, He will be let off the hook by the crooks still there.

Yes is does happen from time to time it's called Tea Money, Take belchin joe from QLD for a start the best man that ever breathed oxygen, that is what the queenslanders would say. So joe thought it was ok to tickle the till. That is what happens when you put foxes in charge of ckook houses.

Am I the only one here who can see how this could be an innocent mistake? They did subsequently change the rules so people with NZ citizenship would lose it if they became Australian citizens. He was obviously unaware that this hadn't been the case when he became an Australian.

It's certainly a more likely explanation than criminal intent.

Ludlum is reputed to have been 'hang 'em high' and entirely without empathy and compassion where other members of parliament who might have transgressed rules, even innocently, were concerned. Malcolm Turnbull drew attention to that in the news report linked to earlier.

Further, it is not as though the subject of birthplace alone, above and beyond dual citizenship, as a reason to doubt or even disqualify hasn't been used in the Parliament and recently, to sledge opponents. Abbott's 'Anglophilia'. How shocking!(sic) And those who sledged him dismissed any charge of Anglophobia, while boasting their own multiculturalism. A matter of birthplace, not dual citizenship. Abbott had taken action on the latter.

Simply to say that the political 'Overlords' in Canberra cannot choose what laws they will obey, or be excused for their claimed ignorance, while the public, the 'punters' (sic), are daily being held to account and are forced to repay Centrelink for errors that are not always of their own making or intent. Or for another example, wages overpayments by Qld's State Health's complicated payroll system that was assured by a global IT contractor and by Health's own highly paid executive.

If politicians are unhappy with a law, they have the power to change it. In this case by a referendum.

But where politicians, aspiring ones too, have so much access to simple 'Plain English' guides and free advice, where application forms are simple and blunt and where they and their colleagues might be criticising others over similar issues, it is very difficult indeed to regard Ludlum's protestations of 'oversight' as anything but negligent casualness and on the pub measure, feigned, B.S.

I don't doubt that politicians will protect one another and a rationalistion not available to erring members of the public will excuse Ludlum from having to repay any moneys and entitlements received to date.

I believe that the credibility of the federal Parliament will again suffer. Even more so if Ludlum isn't immediately refunded his contributions to Parliamentary superannuation and instead is allowed to retain and claim those 'Golden Handshake' benefits.

Graeme of Malvern,

I think your stats are incorrect, firstly because there are 226 MPs in Canberra, not 535. Perhaps you are including the states as well? Secondly, 84 arrested for drunken driving this year with nothing in the papers?

Aidan,

The requirement not to have the citizenship of another country is well known and is made clear to prospective MPs. Also well known is that NZ citizenship is granted automatically at birth and is only lost by it being renounced by the holder.

Secondly, a freedom of information request was sent to Scott Dumdum specifically to determine his NZ citizenship, which was rejected. So Scott Numbnuts cannot claim to know that it wasn't an issue.

So the probability of it being a mistake is remote and would require a monumental level of incompetence.

Shadow,

"The requirement not to have the citizenship of another country is well known and is made clear to prospective MPs."
Agreed.

"Also well known is that NZ citizenship is granted automatically at birth and is only lost by it being renounced by the holder."
I disagree. AIUI that's not even the current situation, and it's now impossible to gain dual Australia/NZ citizenship.

"Secondly, a freedom of information request was sent to Scott Dumdum specifically to determine his NZ citizenship, which was rejected. So Scott Numbnuts cannot claim to know that it wasn't an issue."
Wasn't there a similar FOI request, also rejected, pertaining to Tony Abbott's citizenship? Do you think that was really an issue?

There's an interesting article by Graham Richardson
in The Australian (I can hear the rants, accusations,
insults, ad hominems, and other childish tactics
coming at me) but bear with me - this is
for those who are able to
maintain a balance in their viewpoint to consider the facts
and put politics to one side.

I guess that you could say that Ludlum has only himself to
blame.

You could - but I won't.

Richardson points out - it's one hell of a penalty to
pay for not checking on your relationship with a nation you
left at 3 years of age and never knew.

Obviously there is the argument that the Constitution is
merely trying to ensure that the only allegiance our
parliamentarians have is to Australia but again as Richardson
tells us - New Zealand is not Libya, Syria, Somalia, Russia or
China.

He also reminds us of the real affinity between New Zealand and
Australia which is perfectly encapsulated in our joint ANZAC
tradition.

In this country you don't have to be born in Australia to
become our Prime Minister as they do in the United States
to become President.
However it seems logical as Richardson tells us that if you
were born next door in New Zealand and left when you were three
years old - there should be room for you in our Parliament.

Ludlum has lived here for half a century without causing a fuss.
And I agree with Richardson that instead of booting him out
let's hold a Referendum, change the Constitution and choose
another to boot out. And yes, we all know who that would be.
He was born in London and came to this country when he was three
years of age. I wonder where his loyalty lies. (Knight and Dames,
and Prince Philip - spring to mind).

cont'd ...

There you go leoj - now go nuts with your
attacks!

Enjoy!

Just to broaden this a little, those charged with the responsibility for the management controls in this case would include,

AEC
Clerks of the federal Parliament
Parliament itself, both Houses

A case of all imagining it was someone's else's responsibility? Who should take responsibility for the absence of checking and will anyone be held accountable? Maybe not and not even the offender himself, it seems.

How easy it is for those who ought to know better and are paid very well indeed for their responsibility and claimed professionalism to trivialise and even imply unnecessary restrictions and silliness, in the necessary criteria (few that there are!).

Yet these politicians enjoy trusted, privileged access to information and advising, and are able to access the confidential information on citizens and business. The last mentioned in especially of concern for commercial processes and inventions.

One of the protected species and too high to be accountable, is that it?

Foxy,
If it already occurs to you that Richardson is anything but a reliable, independent source why would you rely on him? Your politics, one assumes?

Surely there is a higher level for this discussion. You should be wondering how, by what means, people in high places can escape detection and accountability for their wrongs and for so long.

leoj,

I chose the article by Richardson because what he
wrote made sense to me. I don't care for his politics.
And what wrongs of Ludlum's are you referring to
exactly. What has he done - apart from having a mental
illness and suffering from severe depression. As I
understand it he has served the people of Australia
very well. Can you provide any evidence to the contrary?

cont'd ...

Here is another link that I think is very pertinent
to our discussion here. It asks the relevant question -
Scott Ludlum has to stand down but it is ok that our
head of state - the Queen is 100 per cent English:
Where does her loyalty lie, whose interests does she
promote whilst travelling overseas or meeting trade
delegations ? Australia's or British?

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/4792179/scott-ludlum-has-to-stand-down-but-its-ok-that-the-queen-is-100-per-cent-english/?cs=7

All completely irrelevant.

There is a higher plane for this discussion.

But Foxy you are likely heading in that direction albeit unintentionally, by modelling the cognitive errors and public apathy, 'What does it matter?', that allow public administration to rot from the head down.

For example, how can you expect good governance (and good government) where you yourself have such low expectations of the competence, principles and ethics of public officials, politicians and leaders?

What a load of utter nonsense! If this bloke was born in NZ, yet spent most of his life in Australia, so what! Oz and the Kiwi's we're joined at the hip, we've fought in every war together, in fact many, from both sides of the pond have suggested NZ should become another Australian State. Why on earth are we making such a big deal of this, surely we have infinitely more important matters to attend to rather than this rubbish?

o sung wu, " What a load of utter nonsense!"

There isn't a law that someone doesn't say that about. The gaols are full of them.

Recently a senior union official said that she would choose what laws she would observe and she would break and she didn't like.

However in this case there is an available law and it is enshrined in the Constitution.

So would you agree that it is reasonable for the public to expect a member of the Australian Senate to have regard for the law?

should be, '.and she would break ANY she didn't like'.

Unfortunately it is not as simple as saying Aus & NZ are so similar
and are ANZACs. We have a lot of people here with birth places with
quite different legal systems.
If a situation developed they could plead their other nationality
excused them of responsibility.

It is to avoid this problem that we have the rule.
Certainly the Electoral office for his first election should have
quizzed him closely as they are the ones with the knowledge.
They should have taken steps themselves and not relied on the
candidates answers. They are at fault for not picking it up.

Thats right Bazz. That is exactly what Abbott's problem is. He is only a new Australian and can't let his old customs go. Far better off with a home coming, than sliming around here.

Should an Australian Senator enjoy less law and less responsibility than an ordinary citizen, by virtue of his/her status?

OR

Should Senators be even more mindful of the law and model the ethics and principles worthy of the trust that is being placed in them?

Is there anyone watching? Who watches the watchers?

In public life there are many examples of abuses of trust, some very serious. In many cases the offenders seem to have been able to escape detection for years and some managed to escape responsibility too.

Aidan,

What twaddle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_nationality_law#New_Zealand_citizenship_by_birth

If you are born in NZ, you automatically gain citizenship except in very rare circumstances. Similarly, you never lose citizenship unless you renounce it, and it has been like this since 1949. SL even admitted that he knew that he was born in NZ, and so unless he was mentally retarded should have suspected that he had citizenship.

My point with respect to the FOI on SL's NZ citizenship was not that he was not entitled to reject it, but rather that it should have been a big wake up call that it was an issue and should check.

Foxy,

While I understand GR's sentiments I wholeheartedly disagree with it for the following reasons:

1-The requirement that MPs don't have a conflict of interest does not prohibit people with dual citizenships or those who do business with government from aspiring to be MPs, only that they remove this conflict of interest by renouncing their dual citizenships and severing financial interests with the government before taking the extremely privileged position as an MP.

2-The requirement is not onerous, SL could renounce his citizenship by simply signing a document and paying a small fee, and still retain his right to travel to and work in NZ. Compare this to Labor's high court challenge for a lib MP to lose his seat because a tenant of his has a commercial relationship with Australia post?

3-Renoucing citizenship is not permanent. If after being an MP, SL could easily regain his NZ citizenship if he so wished.

There is another point I did not mention.

If a Bill passed through both houses and the senate vote went with
a majority of one, then in the future someone could claim that the
law was not valid because one senator was not validly elected.

Dear Shadow Minister,

First in a democracy, any citizen should be eligible to
stand for Parliament. This principle is consistent with
representative democracy, a principle inherent in the
Constitution. Secondly, there should be very few restraints
on elector choice. Further, because of the difficulty of
Constitutional change in Australia, the disqualifications
should not be contained in the Constitution, which entrenches
archaic language devised in circumstances that prevailed a
century ago. They are more properly dealt with through
legislation.

Disqualifications must be flexible to deal with social and
economic change and to remain relevant. Legislative
protections are more flexible and equitable and can be
amended to deal with new dangers as they emerge.

The existing disqualifications are deficient. Indeed s44
was labelled "vestigial" by Barwick C.J. The provisions
are anachronistic and inequitable, and should be deleted, or
replaced with legislative provisions which are less rigid
and capable of being updated by the Parliament as and when
appropriate.

As a general policy, there should be a presumption against
limitations on eligibility, two principles underpin this
policy as listed above.

http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/pubs/pops/pop36/kalokerinos.pdf

I guess there has been a 'technical' breach of one of our electoral laws, therefore I'm clearly wrong. However in the scheme of things, surely we have much more important issues to dwell upon, rather than some minor infraction of an electoral law? I know, I do get it, but...?

o sung wu,

I confidently expected that with your service and principles you would be accepting that a breach of the Constitution had occurred and his position was intolerable.

Ludlum had a jolly good ride and unlike the less fortunate ordinary human who is hauled forth to confront a Court, does not have the benefit of his status and political mates to look out for him, he is unlikely to suffer any real setback. Doubtless as far as the Greens are concerned is a hero who has been wronged (the law should not apply to a Green) and he will later displace another lesser poliie who will be obliged to make way for him.

However, the question still remains. Why weren't the available controls in place and operating where Ludlum was concerned? It isn't sufficient to blame a clerk.

Foxy,

I gather that you are advocating for all Aus citizens to be able to stand for Parliament including criminals, those with pecuniary interests that conflict with their duties, etc.

All democracies allow all citizens of good standing to run for their equivalent of a parliament, and all have conditions similar to Australia's.

The requirement not to be a dual citizen is not without reason and given the almost non-existent cost of compliance for a tiny handful of polies, the argument for changing the constitution is pitiful.

As it is a constitutional requirement, one simply complies, defers from running, or in Scott Numbnuts' case face the consequences.

Hi there LEOJ...

I completely agree with you, as I indicated in my previous Email. With a total admission and acknowledgment of my error. However, our nation is going to hell in a hand-basket, from one bad fiscal situation to another, yet we're still trying to nit-pick some minor technical oversight, that one Party has over another.

When we should 'ALL' have our collective (bipartisan) focuses on the main game, rather than attempting to score a few points here 'n there, from one Party or another? What in hell is wrong with us? Let the first Political Party who've never sinned in some way, against the rules and regulations of the C'Wealth Electoral Act, cast the first stone! It's not the sinning that's the crime LEOJ; it's getting caught.

Any political party standing at the next federal election, that can absolutely guarantee to 'permanently lower' energy prices by say 30% across the board, will win power and hold onto it, without a doubt.

Dear Shadow Minister,

No, I am not advocating anything of the kind that
you suggest. Perhaps you need to read the link I
gave to see exactly what is being criticised and
why, and what should be done about it.

As for criminals being able to stand for office?
You must surely know - restrictions are placed
on the ability of criminals to stand for political
office in this country. Google "Crime and Candidacy -
Parliament of Australia."

As explained earlier - the existing disqualifications
are deficient. The provisions are anachronistic and
inequitable, and should be deleted, or replaced with
legislative provisions which are less rigid and
capable of being updated by the Parliament as and
when appropriate.

But of course it's a Greens Senator we're dealing with.
If it was someone of a different ilk
I imagine that the reactions would be somewhat different
on this discussion. Suddenly we have anti-gun-control law
advocates becoming proponents of the "rule of law".

Gotta laugh.

Foxy,

Have you read section 44 which you labelled "vestigial" as you are starting to contradict yourself. First, you say "First in a democracy, any citizen should be eligible to stand for Parliament." next you admit that there are issues that should disqualify someone that is also from section 44 of the Constitution that is trying to prevent conflict of interests with regards to allegiance or financial.

For reference:

"44. Any person who -

(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power: or

(ii.) Is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer: or

(iii.) Is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent: or

(iv.) Holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth: or

(v.) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons:

shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives."

P.S. I also notice your abject silence when a family first MP and a one nation MP were disqualified.

As a member of The Greens all I can say is Scott Ludlum has acted appropriately in resigning his Senate seat. I expect a recount will be ordered by the court, which presumably will see The Greens number three candidate, Jordon Steele-John elected. Jordon has said, he would rather The Greens choose another person to fill the position. Should Jordon win, and then resign the position, Scott Ludlum would be the ideal choice, providing he meets all the legal requirements at that time.

Politics is a rough and tumble affair, Scott has been shown no quarter by his political opponents, nor should he expect it. He will just have to cop it on the chin.

Paul,

It would also have been appropriate for Numbnuts to resign when he received the FOI 3 years ago.

I suppose the Greens can manipulate the system to reinstate Scott Dudlam, of course following the correct procedure would also require paying back the roughly $2-4m of back pay and entitlements.

Shadow, your man Turnball's must be most upset that The Mad Monk has produced some supposed Pommy letter showing he renounced his Pommy connection in 1993. Turnball's would have rushed home and exclaimed: "Lucy darling! I have finally got rid of that pain in the arse!" Lucy; "That frightful green chap in the Senate?" Turnball's' "No, Tony the Pommy B!"
Most disappointing.

If you do not know that you are a dual citizen then you have the brains of a flea.

If you do not know the constitution then you have no right being a politician.

Of course he knew and of course he should pay back every single cent!

Try that sort of rort on with Centrelink and see how far you get!

Here is one to think about, under 44 (iv) & (v) could all members
of parliament be disqualified as they receive super fund
benefits as an asset due to investments of the Future Fund ?

moonshine, "Try that sort of rort on with Centrelink and see how far you get!"

Exactly! Or try it on the Tax Office (ATO).

Which reminds me that some who maintain dual citizenship get sly tax advantages. Who checks the register of parliamentarians' financial interests? Would that be no-one again by any chance?

Paul1405, is flying the balloon to reinstate Ludlum as though nothing has occurred. That is typical Greens' contempt for the public. Utter hypocrisy that will inevitably rebound on the Greens, a collective of far left activists, that lost all pretensions years ago to being interested in the environment and sustainability.

Their support of 'Open Borders' immigration and in NSW at least, being linked to overseas billionaire Soros' goal of denying Australia's separate statehood and political autonomy sees to that.

Dear Shadow Minister,

It was Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick who stated
that the existing disqualifications are deficient
and he labelled s44 as "vestigial." In other words
forming a very, very small remnant of something that
has become functionless.

I am not contradicting
myself. On the contrary I have pointed out the
provisions are anachronistic and inequitable, and should
be deleted, or replaced with legislative provisions which
are less rigid and capable of being updated by the
Parliament as and when appropriate. Sir Barwick makes
this quite clear.

As a general policy, there should be a presumption
against limitations on eligibility.

Two principles according to him - underpin this policy.

1) First, in a democracy, any citizen should be eligible
to stand for Parliament. And no, not criminals.
Restrictions are placed on the
ability of criminals to stand for political office.

This principle is consistent with
representative democracy,
a principle inherent in the Constitution.

2) Secondly, there should be very few restraints on elector
choice.

Further, because of the difficulty of Constitutional change
in Australia, the disqualifications should not be contained
in the Constitution, which entrenches 'archaic' language devised
in circumstances that prevailed a century ago. (hence Chief
Justice Barwick's use of the term "vestigial"). They are more
properly dealt with through legislation.

The point being made -
is that disqualifications must be flexible to deal with social
and economic change and to remain relevant. Legislative
protections are more flexible and equitable and can be amended
to deal with new dangers as they emerge.

You and others,can go on ranting that Scott Ludlum has only
himself to blame. I won't.

To me I think it's one hell of a
penalty to pay for not checking on your relationship with a
nation you left at 3 years of age and never knew. While in the
meantime you worked honestly, did nothing wrong, and resigned
immediately from your position when you learned of the
unfortunate situation.

Scott Ludlum has lived here for half a century without causing
a fuss. And baying for his blood - is simply wrong.

The resignation of Scott Ludham brought a wry smile to my face.

I recall that this situation has only come about because of a court case brought against elected senator Heather Hill of One Nation. It was instigated by Asian business man named Sue. The court found that Hill was ineligible to stand for the Senate because she held dual citizenship. There were quite a number of parliamentarians, on both sides of the House, that held dual citizenship. The rule had been ignored until this time.

Hill resigned after the case and ON appointed Len Harris in her place.

The hypocrocy here is that no other members resigned their parliamentary positions and they just sat quietly and withdrew their dual citizenry prior to the next election.

Senator Ludham would have known his position and should now be made to repay all his benefits received as a Senator.

Special pleading for the elitist political Overlords who see themselves as being above the law and even above the Constitution.

Another thing, Ludlam received $200,000 for nigh on ten years, but shrugs off his debt through 'oversight' and says he has no assets. Incredible gall!

But a pensioner, low-paid worker, or student who is found to be overpaid by Centrelink is informed, 'You pay up now, or else' and the feds mean it too! No special pleading, 'This is trivial', for them.

Did Ludlam ever hold a NZ passport? Did he ever cast a vote for either or both countries? How did he complete his immigration/departure forms for those overseas flights? There is always a trail.

The amazing thing is that he got away with it for so long. How did he do it? While viciously laying the boots into others too.

Shadow,
I stand corrected: contrary to what I originally said, it is not now impossible to gain dual Australia/NZ citizenship.

But I maintain my belief that it's a cockup not fraud. Ludlum had practically nothing to gain and everything to lose by keeping his dual citizenship.

The really surprising thing is that Larissa Waters has just resigned after discovering she's in the same situation!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-18/larissa-waters-greens-resigns-senate-over-citizenship-bungle/8720066

There are quite a few people in the same situation.

Lets look at the facts without any attacking.

Scott Ludlum believed that being naturalised as an
Australian teenager accounted for him being an
Australian. He was not aware that was not enough
and he does take full responsibility for this
mistake.

Under Section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution which
governs eligibility for Parliament, people may be disqualified
from election to either house if they have:
"an acknowledgement to a foreign power, or are a subject
or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a
subject or a citizen of a foreign power."

Surely if an individual believes that their past citizenship
had been renounced through the process of Australian
Naturalisation - that should be taken into account?
Does this not qualify that he has taken "reasonable steps"
to renounce his second citizenship?

Was it not enough that Ludlum renounced any foreign allegiance
during his Australian Naturalisation ceremony?

To prove this point - more recently according to The Guardian
newspaper, the Tasmanian Liberal Senator Eric Abetz faced
a High Court challenge to his eligibility after it emerged that
he still held German citizenship.

Abetz also argued that he had renounced his German citizenship
through the Naturalisation process. The case, launched by
the antiques dealer - John Hawkins was withdrawn and never
reached a hearing before The High Court.

The Guardian also tells us that Derryn Hinch, now a Senator
himself has previously questioned whether Tony Abbott holds
dual British-Australian citizenship. Something Abbott's
office denied.

Earlier this year Labor challenged the eligibility of Lucy
Gighuhi who replaced The Family First Senator Bob Day and
now sits as an Independent. The High Court rejected the
challenge on the basis there was insufficient evidence that
Gichuhi had not renounced her Kenyan citizenship.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

The Guardian tells us that much has changed since 1992.
New Australian citizens are not longer required to
renounce foreign allegiances during citizenship ceremonies,
instead simply declaring their "loyalty" to Australia.

The wording of the Constitution as the Guardian argues
raises complex and difficult questions. For example,
what would happen, if a refugee who had fled political
persecution was required to seek renunciation of past
citizenship from a potentially hostile government?

Or in Ludlum's case, what happens when an individual
maintains they were genuinely oblivious (as Eric Abetz did)
of a former citizenship?

There are thousands of Australian citizens who were too young
to apply for citizenship themselves and were included as
part of their parents Naturalisation process What would
happen to them today if they wanted to run for political
office?

Also what about Australian citizens whose children were born
overseas and were registered with Australian Consulates in
the countries where they were born - do they have dual
citizenships - where do they stand on this?

Changes do need to be made - and as stated earlier -
disqualifications must be flexible to deal with changes and
to remain relevant. Legislation protectors are more
flexible and equitable and can be amended to deal with new
dangers as they emerge.

Another Green has been caught with dual citizenship - Larissa Waters (?), also claiming that she didn't know she was foreign-born!

These Greens stupid as well as crooked!

Greens Larissa Waters has resigned after seeking legal advice that confirmed she too had committed a breach.

There is no doubt then that a law has been broken.

However, the conditions are made very plain in the members handbook, the briefings they receive and the APPLICATION for Senate nomination that was completed.

As the exasperated public would know, there is one law for them and different laws or no law where their political Overlords are concerned.

So what about ordinary members of the public who inadvertently put a foot wrong, stepping on a landmine, where government is concerned, with (say) ATO or Centrelink? There are many other examples that affect the public. And the public usually don't enjoy access to free legal advice on tap.

What particularly galls the public is that it is so often the leftists like the Greens who are laying down rigid rules for everyone else to follow. Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander though.

Oh dear, another one.
What must be done is that all legislation that passed the senate
must be rechecked for voting and those bills either passed or defeated
after, what is it, four senators, disqualified.

Either a voting recount for the senate will have to be done or the
parties involved, as does happen in some circumstances, proposes one
of their members as a replacement.

The recheck of legislation MUST be done or those acts may be open to challenge.

The ban on dual citizenship is proper as we are now experiencing in
other countries moslems are demanding that their sharia law and their
customs must be accepted. eg Such as not recognising the courts, refusing to stand for the judge etc.
We cannot risk having members of parliament with such beliefs.

Dear Bazz,

That is a bit of a worry.
Singling out a particular religion?
I'm not sure that the courts would
allow it. We're supposed to be a secular
state where people can practice what religion
they choose (or not).

Isn't declaring loyalty to Australia enough?

Foxy, no it is not enough. Moslems swear allegiances in naturalisation
ceremonies and when they are sworn in for parliament on the Koran.
The Koran has a clause that it is legitimate for moslems to lie to
infidels if it is to the benefit of moslems.
This makes any oath invalid under our law as they have sworn with reservation.
There is already a moslem member of parliament and I believe he is not
validly a member.

He is a labour member so the government has a majority of two not one.

Foxy,

It is very well known that citizens of another country are not permitted to sit in Parliament, as there is a potential conflict of interest. For many other countries, the requirements are more stringent. Whatever your feelings with regards to this issue, nothing short of a referendum is going to change this, and a referendum to remove an inconvenience for a few dozen potential MPs is ludicrous.

Given that just about every country in the world recognises citizenship at birth, and many happily permit dual citizenship incl Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, etc, (not Germany), the assumption that citizenship of a country one was born in evaporates on naturalisation in another is naive to the point of idiocy.

Secondly, there is no prohibition of people with dual nationality running for Parliament, only that they have renounced it before the election. And given the ease and simplicity of checking one's citizenship and if necessity renouncing it. I see no need to change the constitution just yet.

This Greens Senator Larissa Waters, a lawyer*, who is 'surprised' that she is a Canadian citizen,

"Queensland Greens Senator Larissa Waters spent $414,000 on fitout for Paddington office
CourierMail
April 19, 2014

GREENS Senator Larissa Waters spent a whopping $414,000 to fit out her trendy Paddington office – more than any of her Queensland political colleagues at the time.

The office, on the top floor of a pristine-condition, split-level building on Given Tce, includes a rooftop patio with timber outdoor furniture and artificial turf.
..
Australian Pensioner and Superannuants League Queensland state secretary Raymond Ferguson said: “They need to look at all their lurks and perks. It’s outrageous.
“There are not enough checks and balances and guidelines. Politicians more than ever should have to account for their actions and the way they spend taxpayer money.” [The Courier Mail Apr19,2014]

*[Larissa Waters] has a Bachelor of Science and a Bachelor of Laws from Griffith University and a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice from the New South Wales College of Law. From 2000–2001 she was a Legal Researcher at the Queensland Land and Resources Tribunal (predecessor of the Land Court of Queensland), from 2001–2002 a Lawyer at Freehills, and from 2002–2011 was a Lawyer with the Environmental Defenders Office.."

Grant Wyeth wrote an opinion piece for The Drum
16th Sept. 2014 on dual citizenship and part of his
argument was that Article 44(i) of the Constitution
was completely outdated and had no real place in
Modern Australia and should be rescinded. This is
similar to the opinion of Chief Justice Sir Garfield
Barwick that was expressed earlier in this discussion.

Wyeth stated that the premise behind Article 44 (i)
of the Constitution came from an era where pompous
ideas about "national loyalty" were predominant.
He made the point that nowadays a "national understanding"
should be considered more important for public office than
a myopic "national identity." And that equally important
for the 21st Century should be a broader "international
understanding."

The current inter-connectedness of the world demands we
have politicians whose life experiences reflect this reality.
"Transnationalism" is becoming a natural way for people to
organise their lives according to Wyeth.

He points out that to deny people with international links
political rights (the right to run for office) is not only
unreasonable but incredibly short-sighted in our current
globalised age. Australia according to Wyeth is undeniably
cutting itself off from some major political talent by
maintaining this outdated Article 44(i).

He says that to think that dual citizens cannot be
representatives of the people is belittling. Especially in
a country like Australia where a quarter of the population
was born outside the country and a further large percentage
are second generation residents with significant overseas
cultural ties.

He states that it could easily be said that people without
such international links are unrepresentative of the
Australian public. With such large numbers of Australians
being so internationally connected we should be able to
rise above cheap definitions of "loyalty" and maturely
embrace our diversity in both our Parliament and our
public debates.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Continuing with Wyeth's article...

He tells us that the former leader of the Canadian
Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff, was hounded by the
Conservative Party as unfit for office due to the
time he spent outside of Canada. That his talents had
him lecturing at Cambridge, Oxford, and Harvard
Universities during these years, the top tiers of his
industry. Wyeth says that this was not enough to
transcend this petty nationalism.

Wyeth argues that this is a matter of great relevance to
Australia. He says - because many of our brightest minds
are also required to pursue their work overseas in
countries with fields of expertise greater than our own.

Wyeth says that this is not something we should begrudge,
particularly if and when they wish to bring their skills
back to Australia.

He then states that fortunately in Australia we don't have
a significant culture of Constitution worship like that
present in the United States. Wyeth notes that Australians
have the good sense to realise that as much grand foresight
as our Constitution's authors had, their work is not
infallible.

Wyeth says - that in this regard, let us hope that out of
this silly undertaking of "gotcha" journalism comes the
public momentum to remove the archaic Article 44(i) from
our laws.

Hear, hear!

Greens Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters finally walked because they had to. That is the law.

Both admitted fault and resigned.

No-one can change that. So move on.

Whether justice will be seen to be done is the issue. Because ordinary citizens are not being cut any slack by government. There are many examples daily.

Not only does leoj want to vindictively apply the law to the errant pair. Which is fair enough, he wants to go beyond that, demanding that if they were to become legally entitled to re-enter the Senate they be barred from doing so. The leoj types would much rather see the Reichstag populated with those of his particular political persuasion than a couple of errant Greens, how they get there leoj would not much care.

Foxy,

Australian citizenship is not taken lightly. If as an Australian citizen over 18, one takes the citizenship of another country, one automatically loses one's Aus citizenship, so the requirement to relinquish dual citizenship in order sit in the highest position of representation of Australia is far from unreasonable or onerous for the 50 odd people to which it applies.

Having dual citizenship is no barrier to becoming an MP, in spite of what Grant Wyeth claims, and an Australian MP is expected to put the interests of Australia firmly before that of any other country.

There are huge chunks of the constitution that are vestigial, that have a vastly greater negative effect than section 44i, such as the entire unrepresentative senate whose only function is to block the decisions of the lower house.

Paul,

Please don't misquote people. I can't find a single instance where Leoj has called for the greens senators to be barred from re entry.

He does make a good point in that the lefties on this thread are perfectly happy to apply section 44 of the Constitution to Bob day and Paul you almost wet yourself with excitement in another post at a labor challenge to a lib MP on the same section, and both green numbnuts were far from charitable, so seeing the chickens coming home to roost for the sanctimonious duo does give us the right to chuckle.

Leoj also makes a good point, LW is a lawyer with a decade of practice, and a blunder of this magnitude certainly casts doubt on her competence. Scott Numbnuts, however, has a fluffy degree and should be applauded if he can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I found the surprise that Scott Ludlum and Larissa Waters expressed, when they realised they were dual citizens, a little hard to swallow at first. To me, if one was born in another country, it was just common sense that one remained a citizen of that country until they renounced their citizenship.

It appears, however, that this isn’t common sense to everyone. I’ve now got some of my uncles and aunts on Facebook expressing surprise at the realisation that they, too, are dual citizens. Until these two incidents, they had all assumed that they lost their British and Finnish citizenships when they got their Australian citizenship.

In hindsight, I suppose that it was only common sense to me because my father finally got his Australian citizenship in the ‘90s, after having lived here for 25 years, and I remember him telling me that he deliberately renounced his British citizenship at the same time because he hated the place. He was so proud of himself.

AJ,
My daughter-in-law said the same thing. She took out Australian citizenship in the 1990's. She assumed it negated her NZ citizenship with the ceremony on OZ day. speech welcoming all the new Aussie citizens, and a nice printed certificate.
I should have known, she still barracks for the All Blacks! And gives me heaps when they kick Aussie ass.

Foxy said;
Wyeth stated that the premise behind Article 44 (i)
of the Constitution came from an era where pompous
ideas about "national loyalty" were predominant.

Foxy we are in a time when our whole cultural identity, our legal
system and eventually our homeland is under attack.
Right now our "national loyalty" is very much needed.

It is time to stand up and be counted or submit.

Thanks to everyone for their viewpoints on this
issue. They are appreciated. And I do understand
all of your concerns.

I've got an older brother who was born in Germany and came
out to Australia with our parents who were refugees
after WWII. He was just a youngster and he was part of
my parents naturalisation process.

I wonder if he
has dual citizenship? He's lived in this country all
of his life and regards himself as an Aussie through
and through. I doubt if it would even occur to him
to check on his citizenship. My younger brother and
I were born here.

I suspect there would be quite a
few people who came out here with their parents as
refugees after WWII fleeing the Soviet Regime at that
time who would be in the same boat - part of the
Naturalisation process of their parents. I imagine that
very few would have renounced their earlier citizenships
thinking that being part of the Australian Naturalisation
process of their parents was enough.

Where parliamentarians say they were 'unaware', the public ('punters' as they are insultingly referred to) would be asking that they pay the same attention to their responsibilities as they obviously do to researching and claiming their entitlements.

As has already been mentioned, the requirements regarding citizenship are spelled out in detail, in plain English, in documents and briefings they cannot say they did not receive.

Anyone who have ever had anything to do with federal parliamentarians, their staffs too, could confirm the interest they have where entitlements, especially travel and freebies are concerned.

However over the years and recently there have been many questions on the subject being discussed here in both Houses, often attacks orchestrated by political parties and resultant media attention. Going back in time, where the Australian and other governments had anything to say about citizenship these were always regarded as newsworthy by the media and the public broadcaster in particular. Such stories had oxygen for days, involving the commentariat (as might be expected!).

My immediate and extended families have many with dual citizenship and of different countries. We tended to travel a lot and work overseas (a problem of work specialisations not available in Oz). Changes to citizenship anywhere are so newsworthy in Australia that casual acquaintances and introductions would very likely regard even the likelihood of changes as topical and the next thing to say after hello.

I do not believe the public would be allowing politicians any leeway on this at all. The excuses would be adding accelerant to the smouldering resentment over the persistent greed and bad behaviour displayed by some politicians.

This in an environment where the public is being led to believe time and time again and by the politicians themselves, that the Senate has an inordinate share of bludgers whose only interest is to goof off, researching nice places to travel and to toe the Party line when asked to do so. And if extra $$s are wanted, to do the same in committees.

The contempt being held for the public is breathtaking.

I should add to the above that over the years I have a had a lot to do with parliamentarians especially on local issues through community clubs and so on. For every 'goof off' or fool one is aware of (you don't meet them with their sleeves rolled up, only briefly at photo opportunities with a decent free feed), there is another who is working extremely hard and under trying circumstances (usually caused by small but highly vocal interest groups). I know some whose families do suffer for large parts of the year.

I apologise for my occasional slackness in editing. A lot to do is my poor excuse.

The majority of early prime ministers were born overseas Chris Watson in Chile of all places, George Reid, Andrew Fisher, Joseph Cook and Billy Hughes in the United Kingdom. Their contribution to early Australia is indistinguishable from that of the native born, Edmond Barton and Alfred Deakin.
Did they ever renounce their foreign citizenship. maybe they did, maybe they didn't. If they did not then they were no lesser Australians than anyone else.

Billy Hughes served Australia longer than any other politician 52 years.

Are the 'Watermelons' stupid and arrogant enough to try that one on an already angry and ignored public, Paul1405?

The Australian Prime Minister gets higher pay than the US President and those Greens Senators' pay and entitlements weren't so shabby either. There wouldn't be many politicians anywhere who travel as much as Oz politicians. And where else do they get such a Golden Handshake on retirement, taken so early for some and for life.

For that dosh and taking into account all of the support they demand and receive, do you imagine that the average wage earner, or someone on a fixed income is going to have the wool pulled over their eyes?

The public is not as forgetful as some imagine. That applies to some of the media commentariat too whose already questionable credibility with the public (that is, the vast numbers of public outside of the ABC's Inner City Hipsters) could be taking a permanent hit on this.

Foxy/Paul,

Incl SW and SL there were 24 MPs in both houses that were born overseas. 22 of them had no problems sorting out their dual nationality, but there are a handful of journos etc that want to change the constitution.

At least now the Senate wont have to put up with Larissa making an exhibition out of feeding her baby in the workplace.

It sounds like you have a traitor in your ranks there, Paul1405!

My father has always barracked for Aussie sporting teams, and never is he happier to see Australia win than when they’re playing against England. Which is somewhat surprising, considering he was as old as 17 when he first arrived in Australia. When people pick up on what’s left of his cockney accent, his response is always, “Nah, I’m ‘Strayan!”, like a true blue, dinky-di, occa Aussie.

I’ve asked him before why he hates England so much, but the only reasons he cites are the miserable weather and the fact that Poms love to whinge all the time. Despite this, however, as soon as he’s around other Poms, he immediately starts dropping his Hs (or should I say, ‘is ‘aitches).

Now, wouldn’t it be nice if all Brits could assimilate like that?

--

I don’t know about changing the Constitution. After all, it’s not that hard to check one’s citizenship status, most politicians seem to manage it, I think they've all learned a valuable lesson now, and it’s not like we need to retain citizenship to have the experience of having lived or grown up overseas or to retain adequate ties to other countries.

Not only are referenda expensive, but most of them get voted down anyway (whether or not they should be) simply because it is easier to reject a proposal than to put the effort into considering the risks and benefits of a change.

Furthermore, there are certain countries for which it could be argued that our MPs holding dual citizenship with is inappropriate (to put it politely); and an across-the-board ban on dual citizenship is far better, on a diplomatic level, than would be the singling-out of certain countries as undesirable places for our political candidates to be retaining citizenship with.

That being said, however, the renunciation of citizenship from one’s motherland is no guarantee against the possibility of an MP retaining treasonous ties with them.

--

Thank you for your contribution, runner. As usual, you have given me a lot to think about.

On second thoughts, the inclusion of s 41(i) of the Constitution may have had nothing to do with concerns of treason and everything to do with a nationalist sentiment, as suggested by the article Foxy mentioned.

It would be interesting to read the discussions that took place regarding this provision in the 1890s Federal Conventions, but pinpointing them is proving to be difficult.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/summary/summary.w3p;adv=yes;orderBy=seq_num;query=Dataset%3Aconventions;resCount=Default

Or s 44(i), even.

Foxy, someone on here said that Germany does not allow dual citizenship.

leoj,
You said the two greens senators walked because 'they had to'.

I am not sure that is the case. Maybe they could have stayed there until someone challenged them in court (like Heather Hill). HH was the only one challenged so it was an action purely against One Nation.

After all there were quite a few members in both houses and on both sides at the time and I do not recall anyone other than HH resigning.

I have not confirmed it but I simply assumed that the dual citizenship members simply stayed there and recinded their foreign citizenship prior to the next election. Or perhaps they did not even do that as I do not recall it being raised again until now.

It is amusing though to now find the greens caught out by a rule that originally was only brought up to embarrass One Nation.

Banjo,

In Sue v Hill, it was found by the High Court that Heather Hill had to resign immediately, as her election was invalid. Renouncing her British citizenship partway through her term was not enough:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1999/30.html

Scott Ludlum and Larissa Waters had no hope. Rather than pissing everyone off by wasting the court's time, they stand a far better chance of being re-elected at some point down the track if they just make a clean break now.

Does anyone know if Eric Abetz has ever renounced
his German citizenship? I'm not able to find anything
about this on the web.

I've finally managed to find something on Senator
Abetz:

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/john-hawkins-questions-for-senator-abetz-

I wonder if anything will be done about any of this?

cont'd ...

The Abetz article by John Hawkins was interesting
reading - but who really knows all the facts involved and
the motivations of the article's author?

Hi Foxy,

There has been a stench about the dealings of Eric Abetz for many years now. A rather slippery customer at best is Abetz.

If Germany does not allow dual citizenship how can some one hold
dual citizenship ?

Foxy,

How come your claimed 'balance' didn't find the most obvious, the Wikipedia entry?

"Eligibility to hold Senate office
On 30 July 2010, Tasmanian resident John Hawkins lodged an objection to Abetz's nomination for re-election, alleging that Abetz still held dual citizenship of both his birthplace, Germany, and Australia. Hawkins subsequently withdrew the petition to the High Court of Australia after receiving appropriate documentation, and the High Court never heard the claim."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Abetz

An interesting article on the issue:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/greens-senator-resignations-overseas-born-mps-insist-they-clear-to-sit-in-parliament-20170719-gxej8z.html

Going by what is said there, the law DOES need to change.

It's one thing to expect people to renounce a citizenship from a country that they had to have known they were born in, but when people can automatically be made citizens of countries they've never even stepped foot in, purely because of their ancestry, then a legal absurdity has been created and the law needs to change.

Outdated or ambiguous law is nothing a bit of healthy judicial activism can't fix (see Adler v George for a funny example), but a more formalist approach tends to be taken when it comes to the Constitution, especially when the provisions are as specific as s 44(i) is. Today's interpretation of less-specific provisions, on the other hand, such as the External Affairs power (s 51(xxix)), would have the founding fathers rolling in their graves, given how much power it has sucked from the states and given to the Commonwealth.

Unfortunately a referendum will be needed. This law seems to be doing nothing more than creating an increasingly complex headache for the political parties that are trying to dot their 'I's and cross their 't's.

AJ,

One can be entitled to citizenship of a country through ancestry but in all cases that I know of it's not granted automatically and one has to apply for it (or your parents do if you are a minor).

Foxy, Paul,

"German citizenship is automatically lost when a German citizen voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another country"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nationality_law

So Abetz as an Aus citizen was automatically not a German Citizen. That he submitted a form of renunciation of his citizenship to the German embassy to avoid a potentially expensive court case does not mean that he was a German citizen before the 2010 renunciation. So all Lib MPs have documentary proof that they don't have dual citizenship.

P.S. As all new MPs have to sign a statutory form declaring a number of things incl that they do not hold citizenship of another country, the two green numbnuts have essentially committed fraud.

Shadow Minister,

That's what I thought, too. But the article I linked to suggests otherwise (which is why I was careful to qualify what I said with, "Going by what is said [in the article] ...").

Upon re-reading the article, however, I think it's a little unclear as to whether such so-called "automatic" citizenship must always be activated MANUALLY, or just activated manually some of the time:

"But others may have found themselves citizens of another nation without ever having stepped foot on it ..." (http://goo.gl/u8zk8v)

"Found themselves" suggests that they did not activate their citizenship entitlement.

If it must always be activated manually, then I would fall back to the arguments I presented earlier for not changing the Constitution:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7851#242681

FFS. This is the reason I rarely ever link to news articles.

leoj,

Wrong again - Take a look at this:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7851&page=8

I became curious about John Hawkins and as a result came
up with the following link about Abetz:

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/john-hawkins-questions-for-senator-abetz-

We still don't know if Senator Abetz's parents ever became
Australian citizens (and he did as part of their naturalisation
process). His Renunciation only took place in 2010.
What about 1994?
and the sixteen years Senator Abetz was in Parliament - did he have
dual citizenship ? It's unclear.

In Queensland there considerable angst is being expressed in newspapers such as The Courier Mail about the large losses to the taxpayer resulting from Greens lack of due diligence in the case of Larissa Waters in particular.

Where a member of the public causes a loss to government s/he is sent a bill for same, often with interest payable and a threat of debt collection action where the account is not settled within a certain timeframe, a fortnight is common. However a member of the public is very likely to be proceeded against in Court where the offence and/or losses are of any consequence.

Where a member of the public is concerned, ignorance is no excuse. There should be no difference between the 'big knobs' of society, in this case the very well paid and well-connected Senators and an ordinary member of the public. But obviously there is, as is already apparent from the special pleading and emotional rhetoric in the media and from their political mates. That is favouritism.

An ordinary member of the public doesn't have well placed interests to spin for him/her either. Spin that would pretend that s/he is the victim and not the one who committed the offence.

In the case of Senators and political parties the law does exist, it is in the Constitution no less and all knew about it. All are required to sign documents and attention is specifically drawn to their requirements, which are publicly available and freely accessible. There can be no question that they and the Greens were ignorant of the law.

We cannot just decide which laws we will obey and which we will not, based on how we find them. Or that we are casual and do not care enough to ensure compliance.

What prevents Ludlam and Waters being progressed against like any other member of the public. Surely they would want their day in court to make their case. And the taxpayer should be recompensed for losses.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I am aware that German citizenship is automatically
lost when a person acquires the citizenship of another
country - however this is the problem with Senator
Eric Abetz. Why the renunciation only in 2010?
Why did he not have it in 1994 when he first entered
Parliament? Tony Abbott has documentation in writing to
prove that he renounced his British citizenship PRIOR
to his entering Parliament, why does Mr Abetz have his
sixteen years after his entry into Parliament?

And should he also have to repay the money he's gained
over all those years - like some here are suggesting for
Ludlum and Waters to do?

We need some rational here don't you think?
What's good for some should also be good for others.
As leoj pointed out - we do need some balance here don't we?
And not just because some belong to the Greens whilst the
other is a member of the Liberal Party - so its OK to brush
that under the rug.

Foxy,

Pleased that you agree that Ludlam and Waters should be required to recompense the Taxpayer for losses they are responsible for.

No doubt too where the Greens are concerned there could be a wealthy overseas benefactor who would oblige by picking up the tab.

For starters, Larissa Waters' case there is that swish Hipster electorate office that the media asked her about but were given the dust-off at the time. This one,

"Queensland Greens Senator Larissa Waters spent $414,000 on fitout for Paddington office
CourierMail
April 19, 2014

GREENS Senator Larissa Waters spent a whopping $414,000 to fit out her trendy Paddington office – more than any of her Queensland political colleagues at the time.

The office, on the top floor of a pristine-condition, split-level building on Given Tce, includes a rooftop patio with timber outdoor furniture and artificial turf.
..
Australian Pensioner and Superannuants League Queensland state secretary Raymond Ferguson said: “They need to look at all their lurks and perks. It’s outrageous.
“There are not enough checks and balances and guidelines. Politicians more than ever should have to account for their actions and the way they spend taxpayer money.” [The Courier Mail Apr19,2014]

Hi Foxy, the motivation that drives some to demand payback is political, I would expect nothing less. If on one hand a return of "wages" is demanded. Then, on the other hand could you not also reasonably argue that compensation be paid for ones contribution to the parliament over the same time, one countering the other. If natural justice is to occur then any prosecution for wrong doing should be in a court of law, not something carried out by ones political enemies within. For example; if you defraud your employer you can be prosecuted for the fraud, but not for remuneration paid during the time when fraud was taking place.

Something I could not let pass;

"At least now the Senate wont have to put up with Larissa making an exhibition out of feeding her baby in the workplace."

How the perverted religious mind sees something "dirty" in something so natural is beyond me. Another run through by runner

Dear Paul,

This entire business is political.

How many of our past Prime Ministers had dual
citizenships I wonder? On the law of averages
I very much doubt if each and everyone who had
been born elsewhere even thought of renunciation
back in those days.

Also as was pointed out in
an earlier link - here we are having two decent
politicians resigning over dual citizenships
which they were not even aware of - due to an
archaic and irrelevant law to Modern Australia
when this country's Head of State just happens to
be British! How on earth can we swallow that?

What's good for the goose (you know the rest)...

leoj,

Wrong again.

Nobody in their right mind would approve of any
politician having to pay back money for being
employed, working hard, and doing a good job
during their term in office -
simply because during that time they happened to
unknowingly have dual citizenship.

So stop stirring.

I suppose that a fitting reply to a Green who claims that the public concerns over the wastage of public funds by the disgraced Greens Senators is only 'political' and gives questionable employment advice, would be to suggest that the $6 per hour paid by the Greens leader to his live-in Nanny (while failing to declare his farm) would be more than sufficient for those unqualified senators.

However as the slack Greens would be aware, politicians can always be relied upon to protect their own kind. So it is unlikely that any pay or conditions received would be forfeited.

However, parliamentary superannuation is different. That is where a refund of contributions without interest would be more than generous.

Then there is the question of what contribution should be made by them and their Party to the costs of those electorate offices. Which in the case of Ms Larissa Waters was always over-generous, self-indulgent and as The Courier Mail was to find, completely over the top.

The issue remains,
"Where a member of the public is concerned, ignorance is no excuse. There should be no difference between the 'big knobs' of society, in this case the very well paid and well-connected Senators and an ordinary member of the public. But obviously there is, as is already apparent from the special pleading and emotional rhetoric in the media and from their political mates. That is favouritism."

Foxy,

Your post is logically deficient. while you acknowledge that Abetz taking Australian citizenship (prior to 1994) means that he loses German citizenship, and thus is eligible prior to 1994, and thus not liable to pay back any sum of money.

In 2010 when he was preparing for the election, he was challenged in the high court by John Hawkins. While JH had no evidence whatsoever, the high court case would not only cost both parties a lot of money but would complicate the election. Popping into the German consulate and renouncing any claim to German citizenship resolved the issue instantly, and left JH with the bill for legal costs.

And the answer to your next question is that one does not have to have German citizenship to renounce it.

Paul,

According to the law, the state can demand the wages and costs of staff to be paid back. The main reason that payment hasn't been demanded from Bob Day is that the reason the senator resigned was that he was bankrupt, and suing anyone that is bankrupt is an exercise in futility.

Dear Paul,

I no longer read anything that runner writes.
I'm not interested in what he thinks or has
to say. His comment that you cite about
breast-feeding in Parliament is a typical
runner "drive-by".

Not to be taken seriously.

He would have had more credibility had he
criticised some of the behaviour that we seen
from politicians during Question Time.

Dear Shadow Minister,

It still does not answer the question, was Senator Abetz an
Australian citizen prior to 1994? We have no proof of that.
Why didn't the Senator include his Australian citizenship
papers (and the date on them) along with his Renunciation
letter from the German Consulate in 2010? The High Court
accepted his Renunciation of 2010 but that does not explain
when exactly did the Senator become an Australian citizen.

That needs to be made quite clear for as Hawkins points out
in the link I cited earlier - how can you renounce something
that you supposedly did not have at that time?

Foxy, the moment he became an Australian citizen he was no longer a
German citizen. It is that simple.
Will everyone now go back to sleep.

Foxy,

I can go to the British embassy and renounce my British citizenship. I don't have British citizenship, but I could apply for it in the future based on ancestry. The same applies for EA. In fact, there is nothing stopping me renouncing my Polish citizenship as long as I complete the form and pay the fee.

Read Wikipedia. EA was naturalised nearly 40yrs ago.

Foxy doesn't want to discuss Ludlam and Waters and the losses due to their negligence.

Greens should be above the law that applies to ordinary folk, apparently.

Whoa,

It looks as though Andrew Bartlett the replacement for Warters may be disqualified for holding a government paid University position at the time of the election, and Scott Numbnuts' position is being filled by a 22yr old retard.

"and Scott Numbnuts' position is being filled by a 22yr old retard." The man you refer to as a "retard" is Mr Jordon Steele-John who suffers from cerebral palsy, and uses a wheelchair. Unlike a gutless moron who uses the secret cover of a public forum to insult, Jordon is out there trying to make a positive contribution to society despite his disablity. Good on him.

Dear Bazz,

I wish it was as simple as you stated regarding
Senator Abetz. However it appears that there are
still questions that do need to be asked unless
we have a double standard regarding Senators
Ludlum and Waters. The question being asked is
when did Senator Abetz become an Australian citizen
and why doesn't he simply provide the documentation
to prove it?

Here's a link that explains further (including what's
been done by the Senator thus far and why:

http://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/eric-abetz-the-greens-and-s44-why-the-double-standard,10519

I hope it helps.

Dear Paul,

It doesn't bode well when posters have to stoop to insults.
It lowers the bar for all concerned and is a turn-off.
Who needs that. Never mind. If its any consolation it usually
is an indication that the person has nothing left to argue
with, and is extremely frustrated. But then that's their
problem.

Jordon Steele-John was on their ticket and is credited with campaigning for two elections. It would have been a travesty if the Greens had not supported him. As it would be if he is regarded as keeping the seat warm. -Which no-one would put past the treacherous Greens (ask Julia Gillard about the Greens!).

By getting his citizenship sorted he has already shown he is far smarter, more mature and reliable than the showboats, Ludlum and Waters.

Now, what should the two foundered showboats, Ludlam and Waters, be paying to recompense the public purse? Not that the Greens might be concerned about the public though.

The issue remains,
"Where a member of the public is concerned, ignorance is no excuse. There should be no difference between the 'big knobs' of society, in this case the very well paid and well-connected Senators and an ordinary member of the public. But obviously there is, as is already apparent from the special pleading and emotional rhetoric in the media and from their political mates. That is favouritism."

Paul,

After years of incessant insults against libs from you, this half wit is a protected species?

P.S. retard usually applies to intellectually challenged and applies equally to SHY.

But here's how the rest of the world views your new senator.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/37/0c/2b/370c2b9d6abd501b023d565849a4b543.jpg

leoj as far as I an aware Jordon Steele-John was an Australian citizen from birth, so there would be nothing to sort out. You as the all knowing, all seeing, fly on the wall may know something different. When confronted with the shock, that in a short time he may find himself as an Australian senator Jordon reacted as many people would, with trepidation.

Shadow, blow it out of you know where.

I heard a suggestion that the greens should copy the liberals and introduce a due diligence test to stop these cock ups in the future. For the greens, it should include an IQ test.

P.S. Here is Timmy with a message for the Australian taxpayers.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEq_WSiUIAA8Pmt.jpg

Paul1405,

You deny youthful Jordon Steele-John's apparent successful compliance with the requirements of his application for nomination, which I might have pointed out for you is wider than citizenship, which he has right anyway.

Not something that other Greens, the 'Look at Moi!' Showboats Ludlam and Larissa Waters were ever capable of. Or was it below them?

Now, what should the now foundered Showboats and the Greens Party be doing to recompense the highly taxed Aussie workers, especially young singles, for the millions of dollars sucked by those casual, errant, self-serving Greens from the trough of taxpayer money?

Why is there one law for Greens politicians and a different law for the public?

leoj,

There are not different laws for different people.
The same laws apply or should apply the same to
everyone. But of course as we all know - depending
on your power and influence it's the application of
these laws that makes a world of difference.

Also what needs to be looked at is the relevance
of the laws that existed so many centuries ago for
one purpose relevant then, and the relevance that
they are today - to Modern Australia. Surely
becoming an Australian citizen and swearing loyalty
in a Citizenship pledge to Australia first and
foremost should be enough?

Peter Costello pointed out in his Memoirs that -
"The Australian Citizenship Oath of Affirmation tries
to capture the essence of what it means to be Australian.
It reads as follows: 'From this time forward (under God)
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose
democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties
I respect and whose laws I will uphold and obey."

There is a lot of sense in this pledge.
Surely you have to agree.

What should be concerning you, but strangely it isn't, Foxy, is the offenders' obvious ease in concealment and protecting themselves from scrutiny for so long. Deliberate or not is irrelevant, although the conditions were spelled out in documents and briefings they should have attended to.

And where were the minders who were supposed to be watching? Some were formally charged with that responsibility and others have the responsibility through their duty of care, for example the Greens Party. -Issues among others covered in previous postsd.

The discussion should be moving to that higher plane, exploration of what prevented the available controls from being in place and working. And one must also be considering then what pressure real or implied, direct or indirect, collegiate or self-interest even, that may influencing the minders and others if they may have been so casual about their due diligence responsibilities.

Honestly now, what is there about being in a powerful position that acts to shield against detection of wrongdoing or bending the rules for self-advantage and even where found out, diminishes or wipes out the consequences that ordinary members of the public would, not might, face?

Australia is not a Third World country. What is going on? Why is there one law for Greens politicians and a different law for the public?

leoj,

We might also well ask why is there one law for Senators
Scott Ludlum and Waters and another for Senator Eric Abetz?
He did not renounce anything until 2010, and he was in
Parliament since 1994. He sat there for sixteen years before
his "Renunciation." When did he become an Australian citizen?
Did he renounce his citizenship prior to entering Parliament
in 1994? And why doesn't he provide the documentation?

If we're going after people - everyone should be included in
this pursuit - and not just a select few - right?

cont'd ...

BTW leoj,

What colour is your garden -
Green or brown?

We all would like to know?

Foxy,

The same law applies for the greens as anyone else.

LW and SL were faced with positive proof that they were not eligible to be senators. EA has positive proof that he is eligible for this term and at least the previous 2. However, if you or anyone else have proof that he had dual citizenship prior to that the onus is on you to provide it. However, even if you do, it will have no effect on his present status.

I wait in breathless anticipation to see whether dinner tally and Sam Dastardly have dual citizenship.

The two Greens Showboats who foundered themselves and have no-one to blame but themselves, are revealed to the public as allegedly toughing it out to the very end, with the certainty of imminent unmasking forcing them to check where they needed to and disclose. That takes a lot of nerve.

Greens leader Richard Di Natale, who was sorely let down by both deputies, admitted that the Greens need to improve governance.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-18/citizenship-issues-in-parliament-how-does-this-keep-happening/8721012

Richard Di Natale's meaning is clear, Greens candidates cannot be trusted to do it themselves. But these are candidates, parliamentarians, Senators, who are trusted with deep State AND COMMERCIAL secrets and the confidential information of ordinary citizens. They are also paid very highly for their responsibilities. That is obviously whether they take those responsibilities seriously or not.

Of course the political spin to protect them and hopefully buff them up for a later Lazarus-like return would be trying to reverse the situation by casting them as the innocent victims of a cruel 'technicality' of the Constitution.

However, while in the bubble that might sound like plausible deniability, or whatever the current leftist-speak is for outright lies, the public will not be having a bar of it and yes, absolutely yes, the public will remember them as not to be trusted.

Sarah Hanson-Young, Senator for South Australia, cut a sweet deal to pay back travel money to which she was not entitled. Politicians from other Parties have had to pay back debts too.

The public need to be assured that, since they haven't offered themselves, Ludlam and Waters will be required to make fair recompense to Government. Even then, they could expect far better treatment than an ordinary member of the public who would be slammed with a penalty, interest on the gross and threat of debt collection and trashing of credit rating.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Breathless anticipation?

Dream big!

Personally I am happy in anticipation of
what is coming!

cont'd...

Dear Shadow Minister,

What you should be concerned about is the
disintegration of the Liberal Party in this
country. A long time ago the Liberals could
govern in their own right. Then they needed
the Nationals. Now some Conservatives have
broken away, and the question is - how many
others will follow? Plus there is internal
bickering as well as snipping from the side-
lines. So, what is the Party's future?
Is anything being done to prevent the total
implosion?

According to the forums very own Horice Rumpole, Shadow Minister, if your not an arch conservative like himself you must have been born in a foreign country.
Yep! Richard Di Natale will have a tough time proving his Australian citizenship considering he was born in Melbourne Victoria, Unlike that Liberal Party Kraut who was born who knows where.

Foxy, "So, what is the Party's future?"

Those selfish showboating fools of deputies, Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters, have left the already beleaguered Richard Di Natale in a terrible, no-win situation where improvement to the Greens Party is a lost dream.

Who would want to be Richard Di Natale and be putting a foot into the green swamp when they all meet in Canberra to decide roles? Indiana Jones couldn't imagine in a nightmare the toothy, poisonous, plotting nasties concealed beneath.

The 'Watermelons' would be wanting Adam Bandt as deputy. So, the only real choice is for Di Natale is to play the womens equity card to rule Bandt out of contention. He could end up with two deputies and twice the angst again.

Sadly, Richard Di Natale is better off finding another area of life to make his contribution. There are some things that cannot be pushed uphill.

Foxy,

Similarly, the greens are falling apart with internal fighting and the loss of 2 MPs with a further 2 in doubt. Recent polling shows that there is a risk of them falling into 4th place behind One Nation.

Paul,

I have British citizenship, as my father was born overseas, and applied for it on my behalf when I was 16 before I ever left the country. However, having never lived in the UK my children cannot get it automatically.

Dinner Tally's parent(s) were Italian, and so his parents also had the right to claim Italian citizenship on his behalf. The question is whether they did.

With regards to Abetz's citizenship, the moment one becomes an MP one gets a diplomatic passport, which is hard to issue to a non-citizen.

Leoj, what, with you and the rest of the One Nation ratbags. Go fly a drone.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The Greens may well fall behind but more to the
point will the Liberal Party even be in the
running if things keep going as they currently
are with the wrecking ball that is Mr Abbott?

As for the question of Mr Abetz's citizenship?

You stated that "the moment one becomes an MP one
gets a diplomatic passport which is hard to issue
to a non citizen".

So according to you that means that Senators Ludlum and
Waters received ones as well (both being MPs).

Regarding Senator Abetz? One can't help but wonder which
passport he would have used while travelling - his
German or his Australian one? I guess it depends exactly
when he became an Aussie and whether he renounced his
German citizenship at that time.

According to my German relatives you did not automatically
lose your German citizenship if you became a citizen of
another country. It all depends on the year this happened.
Rules changed with the years.

Paul1405,

What complete rubbish.

Rubbish is the key word in this discussion.
So leoj, think (if you can) before you post!

Foxy,

It is time to move on. Greens leader Richard Di Natale, who was sorely let down by both deputies, Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters and has said that the Greens need to improve governance.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-18/citizenship-issues-in-parliament-how-does-this-keep-happening/8721012

Sarah Hanson-Young, Senator for South Australia, cut a deal to pay back travel money she was not entitled to receive. Politicians from other Parties have had to pay back debts too. You have said that yourself, but only where one side of politics is concerned, where you never let due process get in the way either. Still, you are for money being recovered and that is the point.

The public need to be assured that Ludlam and Waters will be required to make fair recompense to Government.

So, what should Ludlam and Waters be paying back out of those millions of taxpayers dollars? What deal would you cut for them?

Foxy,

A logical deficit there! Ludlam and Waters as Aus citizens were entitled to Aus passports, so this proves Aus citizenship, not the lack of foreign citizenship.

Dear Shadow Minister,

What it proves is that having an Australian passport
is a recognition of their Australian citizenship.
Therefore it would be a natural assumption on their
part that that's where the matter ended. Why
would you bother checking on your relationship with
a nation you left at a very young age and never knew
when you are an Australian citizen and have been
recognised as such by being given an
Australian passport.

Makes no sense.

Foxy,

And why would that be a natural assumption? I would prefer MPs to have unabiguous loyalties to Aus, especially in positions of power and privy to confidential information.

The requirement to give up dual citizenship is a tiny sacrifice that is a simple task which only complete morons would fail to navigate for a significant salary with incredible perks.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Why don't we make it a part of The Australian Citizenship
Oath or Affirmation to renounce any prior citizenship?

It could read as follows:

"From this time forward (under God) I pledge my loyalty to
Australia and its people, and I renounce my German/ British/
whatever citizenship. I pledge my loyalty to Australia and
its peoples, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights
and liberties I respect and whose laws I will uphold and obey."

Then the need for any future renunciations of mistakes made -
could be avoided.

"I(SM) would prefer MPs to have unabiguous loyalties to Aus, especially in positions of power and privy to confidential information.

What a load of sanctimonious weasel words. What about Eric Abetz a Liberal government minister, Shadow do you suspect Abetz, a Kraut by birth, was passing on state secrets to the Nazi's or some such thing.

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/eric-abetz-the-greens-and-s44-why-the-double-standard,10519

Foxy,

That would not actually renounce your second citizenship.

Again, changing things for everyone because a couple of MPs are idiots is overkill.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I don't think its over kill at all.

Isn't it overkill when you take out Australian Citizenship
swear an oath of loyalty but then have to double up and
renounce an old citizenship that you may not even be aware
that you still had. Why can't it all be taken care of in
one move. Why the double necessity - from a bygone era.
Can't we change this. And get with the times.
We're no longer a British colony.
Ah, wait a minute...
We may be independent in some respects - but not in others
it seems.

Foxy,

Most countries will not consider a renunciation of a citizenship (or without the person going into their embassy/consulate with the correct identification and doing it there in person. What you do in the Aus citizenship ceremony is not recognized.

Paul,

Abetz no, Rhiannon certainly.

Dear Shadow Minister,

That's the entire point.

It isn't recognised - yet.

Hopefully things will be made simpler in the future
if there's enough public interest and pressure.
But it is a big if.

Foxy,

There is another issue. What about the 99.99% of people that neither want nor need to revoke their other citizenships? What about the $200m needed for a referendum that probably won't pass?

All this for 2 idiots?

Dear Shadow Minister,

You right we do need to consider quite a few
issues in our discussion.

As -
One journalist pointed out that if we are talking
about changes to Article s44(i) of the Constitution
the key is to aim for striking the right balance
between maximising participation by Australian
citizens while also safe-guarding the national interest.

Dear Leoj,

«Pleased that you agree that Ludlam and Waters should be required to recompense the Taxpayer for losses they are responsible for.»

The taxpayer has lost nothing because had those two not been elected, there would have been some other two clowns in their place, receiving that same money.

---

Dear SM,

«All this for 2 idiots?»

Why, those 2 idiots are already out, so it's not going to help them anyway.

Rather, it is for the ordinary voters, allowing us to be represented by who we choose, rather than by who we choose out of a given government-approved list (as in Hong-Kong and Iran).

«The requirement to give up dual citizenship is a tiny sacrifice»

Not if it prevents you from visiting your family in your old country. Once renouncing a citizenship, obtaining an entry visa there might no longer be easy or even possible.

---

Dear Foxy,

I like much of what you write here, but sadly you still speak of this abstract "national interest", as if it was more important than the interests and wishes of those people who actually live here and are adversely affected by the tyranny of the regime. Why demand loyalty to a body from one who represents those people who never agreed in the first place to be subjected to that body and are attempting to salvage their freedom by overthrowing it?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I was not at all suggesting that the abstract 'national
interest' was more important than the interests and
wishes of the nation's people. That would certainly go
against the 'national interests' of this country.
And we have the means to vote out those in power who
shape the various policies regarding our international
engagement, diplomacy development, humanitarian aid,
trade, peace and security, that we feel are not to our
best advantage.

Therefore I'm sure that you will agree that the 'national
interest' is a product of the political, social, and
cultural meaning we give it. In other word the 'national
interest' is decided by the community whose interest it is.

I trust this clarifies things.

In the subject case the national interest was served by two 'Showboats' resigning from the Senate where their casualness and egocentrism could have done more harm over years.

Their examples raise the question of what risk-based screening should be conducted for nominations for the parliament and the sobering realisation up-front that the politicians and their party machines have an interest that rules out reliance on QA by them (no penalty for the Party or leader for slack QA).

What should be made public as a matter of course wherever a nomination is made?

Dear Foxy,

You have a big heart.

That is clear and I always appreciate your good intentions.

However, a heart without intellect and logic is not enough (nor is intellect and logic without a heart).

For advancing the national interest, such national interest would need to exist and that could only be if nation was a real thing.
- But it isn't. It is superimposed.

What we have in reality is a large variety of people (and animals) who live in this continent - each with their own values, thus their own goals and interests. Somehow we need to live in peace together, but that does not make us a nation, nor does it link our interests in any way.

Forcing people to declare loyalty to some non-existing concept with which, if intelligent, they cannot agree, just so they can take an active role in determining their physical fate on this planet, only encourages them to lie/cheat and does not truly contribute to the peace, which we all seem to want.

---

Dear Leoj,

«What should be made public as a matter of course wherever a nomination is made?»

The candidates' intentions, interests, allegiances and abilities.

No response should be considered 'right' or 'wrong': the only people to screen out candidates should be the voters.

Candidates could refuse to answer, but that would probably constitute a political-suicide: would you vote for someone who refuses to disclose what they stand for?

Now if a candidate stated certain intentions/interests/allegiances/abilities but demonstrates the opposite in parliament, then their voters should be able to sue them and complain to the police so such members can be charged with fraud.

Dear Yuyutsu,

The Australian Citizenship Oath or Affirmation tries to
capture the essence of what it means to be Australian. It
reads as follows: 'From this time forward (under God) I
pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose
democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I
respect and whose laws I will uphold and obey.'

To be an Australian citizen one pledges loyalty first to
Australia. One pledges to share certain beliefs - democratic
beliefs- to respect the rights and liberty of others and to
respect the rule of law.

As Peter Costello points out in his Memoirs - there is a
lot of sense in this pledge. He states that unless we have a
consensus of support about how we will form our legislatures
and an agreement to abide by its laws, none of us will be
able to enjoy our rights and liberties without being
threatened by others. We have a compact to live under a
democratic legislature and obey the law it makes. In doing
this the rights and liberties of all are protected.

Hence the current contention at the moment that is questioning
the archaic Article s44(i) of our Constitution as to whether
this particular law is outmoded for Modern Australia. That is
something that we as citizens are entitled to do. To debate
whether it is still in our best interests to retain this law.

It is possible to create objective
policy in the national interest - because the national interest
itself should be decided by the community whose interest it is.

"Hence the current contention at the moment that is questioning the archaic Article s44(i) of our Constitution"

Sounds like those late night TV advertisements, "Everybody is talking about 'X' Product"

Of course they are [Not!] LOL

Here is a link on what voters think:

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2017/07/21/voters-ok-with-dual-citizens-in-parliament.html

There's plenty more on the web.

44.2 per cent are in favour of Article s44(i) of the
Constitution excluding dual citizenship.

46.2 per cent are against Article s44(i) of the
Constitution.

9.6 per cent are undecided.

Hence the contention as mentioned earlier. (smiley face).

Did they ask how many people want the Greens 'Showboats' back? Poll Queensland and see how many want to save Larissa Waters.

However those media/news driven polls are a complete waste of time. For many reasons, not the leat being that people are caught on the foot and have not had the provision/s explained to them.

However if you want to support a real poll and run by the Electoral Office, what about this one from the same site? Some pages of supportive posts if you please,

"Senior Liberal Peter Dutton has pushed the case for a postal plebiscite on the issue of same sex marriage, saying he would like it resolved in this term of parliament.

He says a postal plebiscite would require no legislation but would deliver the same policy intent as a proper plebiscite, which has been blocked by the Senate.

'I think that is a much a cleaner process than people running off to support private member's motions or a Labor stunt within the House of Representatives,' Mr Dutton told Sky News on Sunday."

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2017/07/23/dutton-wants-postal-plebiscite-on-marriage.html

Leoj, has spent the past week salivating on the forum over a misdemeanour committed by a couple of Greens. Nothing to get ones knickers in a knot about, unless of course you are the all seeing, all knowing, fly on the wall, Green hating leoj that is. He claims the left of politics is preoccupied with gay marriage, something he oft quotes from a new political love, the big loser himself, the befuddled and muddled Mark Latham. Unfortunately leoj occupies 99% of his forum time boring the pants off so many with his incessant anti Green diatribes.

The voters of Australia are far more concerned about the bread and butter issues that directly affect them, than some perceived transgression of an anachronistic section of the Australian Constitution. What leoj should be screaming about is the poor state of governance being enacted in Canberra by that pair of misfits Turnbull and Abbott. While this pair of nincompoops exchange blows, Australia goes straight down the gurgler!

The sooner an election is called the better! Agree Leo?

Dear Foxy,

I would have done away with the whole of Article s44, not just s44(i).

Implicit in s44 is the idea as if being elected to parliament is a privilege of the appointed: well it isn't - it's a privilege of the voters who appoint their representative. S44 limits this voters' privilege, thus is wrong.

Yes, if I were to immigrate today, I would not have been able to pass the Australian citizenship criteria because it would require me to compromise my conscience, I suspect that the same could also be said of many Australian-born people. Yet at the time I only had to give my allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors, which was so much easier. Indeed, I have since accepted Her in my heart as my Queen.

«He states that unless we have a consensus of support about how we will form our legislatures and an agreement to abide by its laws, none of us will be able to enjoy our rights and liberties without being threatened by others.»

These are Peter Costello's views, but it is short sighted:

"Unless" implies no other way.

While the rule of law is one method, it is unwholesome and fear-based. There are better ways to maximise our ability to enjoy our rights and liberties without being threatened by others. No solution is perfect, but note that the enforcement of laws, itself defeats the above purpose as it limits our ability to enjoy our liberties without being threatened by others (i.e. police/courts/jails/etc.). Better, more creative and less violent, solutions do exist.

In any case, how can you generate a consensus using oaths made under duress? but migrants aside - Australian-born people were never given the option to confirm or decline the above agreement, meaning that no consensus exists.

«the national interest itself should be decided...»

Again, since there's no such thing as nation, there cannot be such thing as "national interest". Whatever people may decide, that is logically impossible, so better concentrate on how we can all live together in peace without the imposition of a "nation".

The Queensland of Old?

http://newmatilda.com/2017/06/04/larissa-waters-asked-one-question-too-many-about-labors-new-mega-casino/

Foxy,

That is, "By Larissa Waters". Froth from 'The Bubble'?

Paul1405,

The Greens are random and that is putting it mildly,
"Calling Spaceship Democrats II, come in please?"..
..."Whoops, you are breaking up Spaceship Democrats II and er, it isn't just your radio".

While your NSW 'Eastern Bloc' faction was undermining your national leadership and the selfish 'Showboats' Ludlam and Waters were scuttling themselves and there is all that gay this and gay that, L'il Willie Shorten has been quietly beavering away, plundering Greens membership.

Do you reckon Shorten has stitched up the Greens too where donations from 'that' union are concerned?

How Richard Di Natale is managing to hold himself together goodness knows. But no leader should have to put up with the chaotic collective of white-anting protesters he inherited and can't do anything about. Bob Brown is attacking the party's weak national administration and by implication (since Bob himself was never wrong), Di Natale must be in the frame for that as well.

By now Richard Di Natale would be wishing that Italy might swallow him up, "One dual citizenship now, pretty please?".

Foxy,

I was a bit harsh in dismissing Larissa Waters article. She has a point to make but it is lost in the emotion. Maybe the press release was drafted by an enthusiastic staffer.

Larissa does not have the right skill-set to lead or represent IMHO. She is not an administrator either. However she could serve well in a research/support role.

It is concerning that Greens are not rallying around besieged Richard Di Natale to lend support. It is a pity that the Greens have an ex-leader to critique the real leader, just as the LNP and Labor do too. The risk of losing Di Natale is real and there is no-one with vision and leadership qualities as a replacement.

Foxy,

Irrespective of how you feel presently, this constitutional requirement was a non-issue 6 months ago and will be a non-issue 6 months from now.

Both Labor and the Libs have a rigorous screening process to prevent stuff ups like this, and the issue only came about due to the gross incompetence of 2 greens senators.

As a constitutional law, it cannot be changed by Parliament and would require a referendum costing > $200m and most certain to lose as referendums need to pass in every state and territory, and generally fail without bipartisan support. Given the tenuous support your mini poll indicated, the required support is not there.

Leoj, you're wrong, no matter how much you would like it to be the case, and how much you stir the pot with your ignorance Richard Di Natale's position as federal Greens leader is rock solid. Certainly far more secure than the positions of Turnbull and Shorten. Given the instability within the Coalition, Turnbull could go at anytime, and Shorten's position is only as good as to the next election. Billy Boy has to win, or he's out.

Foxy, there is a basic flaw in our political system, the two party system, and all the advantages given to those two parties, the Coalition is in reality one party. Electorally the two obtain a disproportionate amount of representation. At election time 95% of votes end up in the Labor or the Coalition pile, the two party preferred nonsense sees one or the other gain 50% plus of the vote. That ensures one or the other will form government. A minority government is an aberration which soon sorts itself out. Despite a steady decline in their vote, over time, the two big parties continue to share government, alternating from one to the other. This bias is intensified by the capitalizing of politics by wealthy benefactors, donating mostly to the big two, for obvious reasons of largesse flowing their way from government, this all ensures a continuation of the bias.

The great value of true third parties and independents is their "freedom" to question and highlight inadequacies of governments, something that cannot always be relied upon to be effectively done by the official opposition. Your Larissa Waters 'newmatilda' article is a case in question. When the stakes are as high as they are in the Queensland development, with vested interests threatened as they are, do not expect them to take it lying down. They will call in a debt owed by government very quickly, and government reacts as they expect them to.

Dear Paul,

You've summed things up beautifully.

I wrote to Shadow Minister on Graham's thread that
although I've never voted for the Greens I admired
Scott Ludlum and Larissa Waters. They to me represented
the party's two best performing senators and their
departure will have a huge effect not only on the
environmental party but on Parliament in general.
Together Ludlum and Waters represented the Greens'
Parliamentary future.

Larissa Waters was the party's best media performer.
As one political commentator pointed out - she
had a great policy brain and was an effective campaigner
on issues like the Carmichael coal mine, the health of
the Great Barrier Reef, women in the workplace, and
much, much more. She was tough and feisty.

Scott Ludlum was one of the the best Senate's Estimates
questioners. A razor sharp intellect with a sound grasp
of Parliamentary tactics.

Their going is a great loss not only for the Greens but for
all of us who value talented politicians in our Parliament.

leoj,

I am happy that you did find some merit in the
link I gave about Larissa Waters.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You could be right. Six months from now all this
could be a non-event as you say.

However, I'm hoping that the opposite will be
true. That voters will ask for changes to be made to
archaic laws. That these recent events will lead
to other possible changes as well.
In what actually serves our 'national interest'.

However Richard Di Natale is a dead man walking. After years of looking away and not reporting most of the Greens factional ructions, even buffing them up, the ABC has been obliged to see the obvious (and mild satire it is too),

"The Greenlight Zone with Richard Di Natale
Richard Di Natale takes a trip into the Greenlight Zone as he discovers several members of his party have vanished and no-one seems to think they ever existed."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-23/the-greenlight-zone-with-richard-di-natale/8735394

However Richard Di Natale couldn't fall off his perch fast enough to please the hating Greens 'Eastern Bloc' faction, the serial *bleep*stirrers, who want to put the awful Lee Rhiannon in as leader and as deputy, Adam Bandt, who vies with Rhiannon for the dubious prize of most unattractive to the main body of the electorate.

Bob Brown, who himself as leader was always complaining about being white-anted by Lee Rhiannon and the Greens Trots, is jealously sinking the boot into present leader Di Natale, for poor 'administration',

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/07/21/greens-need-stronger-admin-bob-brown

Is that Bob Brown's signature 'gaslighting' look? Anyhow, it brings back memories of his cruel manipulation and Greens undermining of Australia's first woman PM, Julia Gillard, who remarked ruefully later that the Greens is just a protest party. It is chockers with narcissists too. Although the number was reduced recently.

Anyone who denies that Richard di Natale is embattled must not have visited Earth for some time,

"This is Ground Control calling Paul1405. Come in Paul1405, where are you?"

Leoj, there you go again buzzing around, pretending you are the all knowing. all seeing, fly on the wall. When the reality is you know nothing of the Greens. Have you ever personally met a Green, while strutting the Gold Cost in your white shoes, I think not.
Now to claim Lee Rhiannon wants the leadership, is nothing by a figment of your distorted imagination.
Is this your job. getting on this forum and peddling this nonsense. Did Pauline promote you to this exalted position within One Nation

Foxy,

Larissa Waters or anyone else interested in probing below the surface where the Qld government is concerned had better be aware that John Bjelke Peterson was a kindly, eccentric old gentleman compared with Premier, the Hon Annastacia Palaszczuk and her crew. One word, 'Knuckles'. Two words, 'Dragging knuckles'. There you go, the Qld government in one or two words.

Joh B-P , not John.

leoj,

If you're interested in probing below the surface
then the following link may be of interest.
It's on how Johannes Bjelke Petersen inspired a
generation:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/How-joh-inspired-a-generation/2005/04/24/1114281450821.html

Foxy,

I fail to see how changing S44 of the Constitution is in the national interest, only in the personal interest of two incompetent senators. As for these individuals being shining examples of talent, I will agree to disagree, as per my post on the other thread.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I also indicated on the other thread that is
what we should do. I'm glad that we agree.

Leoj; "Joh Bjelke Peterson was a kindly, eccentric old gentleman". Give us a break, Bjelke Peterson was a conniving. manipulative and vindictive criminal. Who headed up one of Australia's most corrupt governments ever. If you believe that hogwash you posted, then you deserve the title of 'Useful Idiot'. Bjelke Peterson with his persona of the befuddled eccentric, yet kindly old gentleman was able to dupe so many, it looks like you included.
Or as a member of the Queensland white shoe brigade were you predisposed to the Joh Bjelke Peterson style of government?

Paul1405,

In fact my meaning was nothing like that deliberately clipped version that takes it out of context. You have a habit of misquoting and making things up.

The post is just several posts back and easy for others to check.

Dear Paul,

You were absolutely right.

That was exactly what was said.

An attempt at the "Donald Trump" tactic of denial.

Gotta laugh.

Foxy,

Your growing Pinocchio Nose will rival that of your comrade Green, Paul1405.

You ran out of excuses for those 'Showboat' Greens, Ludlam and Waters, huh?

Leoj, as your fearless leader, the lovely Pauline would say; PLEASE EXPLAIN!

I can see you would be a Joh man from way back.

"Don't you worry about that"
"Goodness gracious, I know what you're trying to do."
"Just you wait and see."
"Let me tell you, what is good for Queensland is good for Australia."
"I call it feeding the chooks."

You said you rubbed shoulders with Aussie poly's, when you need to do a bit of fund raising. Was it with Old Joh and his band of merry men?

Thanks Foxy.

Dear SM,

«I fail to see how changing S44 of the Constitution is in the national interest»

Indeed, had there been such a creature called "national interest", then S44 would have been one of her protective scales.

But while this bird of nationalism ought to rest with the dinosaurs, I agree with you that having a referendum just to operate on this single scale, is way too expensive. Rather wait and place this on a long-term to-do list, for some future referendum once public-opinion is ready to repeal and replace the whole Australian constitution or at least half of it.

Yuyutsu, reading your posts I often find myself agreeing with you. Do you think there is a cure for it? Seriously, that term "national interests" that the Turnbull's and the Shortens's of this world like throw around with such gay abandon. Its sacrosanct, not to be questioned. If you happen to ask why? about this or that, you are hit with the line "its in the national interest" (how dare you question it!) "sorry I asked".

We should ask "in whose interest?" and the answer is more often than not, the elite who control and dominate society. The correct term is "sectional interest".

leoj,

Your unsubstanciated rants don't interest me.

Dear Yuyutsu and Paul,

Hopefully something good will come out of the
current political mess that we're in - and voters
will have the wisdom to make better changes in the
future regarding the direction of this country
in so many ways.

Did either of you happen to watch Q&A last night?
The audience and the panel featured High School
Students. There were some tough questions presented
to the two politicians on the panel. Watching these
young people made me see that the future of our
nation is in good hands with these young people.

Dear Paul,

«Do you think there is a cure for it?»

Spiritual maturity.

You see, nationalism did not spring out of nowhere, historically it had some, albeit limited, character-building educational role for certain youths of a violent temperament, helping to constrain and direct their violence.

However, people too often confuse their educational aids with reality. Moreover, using the above technique on young people of a different temperament can be traumatic. Could it be that the use of "national interest" by adults, stems from them being abused by that same term in the first place when young?

In the final episode (fall out) of "The Prisoner" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prisoner), are described three types of rebels.
One is "Uncoordinated youth, rebelling against nothing it can define".
Second is "An established successful member of the establishment turning upon and biting the hand that feeds him".
Thirdly, the hero of the series is described as: "A revolutionary of a different calibre, he has rebelled, resisted, fought, held fast, maintained, destroyed resistance, overcome coercion".

The success of nationalism is based on fear, essentially the fear of the first two types. It is a false solution, but it is easy for those who live in fear to overlook this. For spiritual maturity, we need to encourage the third type of rebellion, rather than the first or second.

While you seem to mostly blame the second type, depicting nationalism as a conscious intrigue, I think it is more often a case of inert habit and lack of reflection.

---

Dear Foxy,

I only caught a fraction of Q&A on the radio, while driving.
My impression, for whatever it's worth (mind you, I was more concentrating on the road ahead), was that these youths are being led like sheep within societal conventions and are not encouraged to think outside the square and ask more truly-important questions (well perhaps they earlier or later did, as I only heard a fraction).

Dear Yuyutsu,

It's a shame you didn't watch the entire program.
The younger generation asked tough questions of
their peers - Liberal Environmental and Energy
Minister Josh Frydenberg and Labor's Health
Spokeswoman Catherine King.

Topics covered were the cost of living, hovering
prices, and the skyrocketing of education fees,
the Adani coal mine in Queensland, the Great
Barrier Reef, climate change, same sex marriage
(raised by a gay student), mental health issues,
teenage suicide, freedom of speech, and how engaged
young people are in politics. Also a young Muslim
audience member raised a question about the new
combined intelligence ministry.

It was a program well worth watching in my opinion,
and hopefully it can be held in other towns and
states to get a better overall impression of what
the young think nationally.

Dear Foxy,

Yes, it would be interesting.

But I am not a watcher - I do not have a television and most I know of current affairs I hear on the radio while driving, also from OLO. I think that one ought to actively live their own life rather than watch from the sidelines how others live theirs.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I'm not a great TV watcher but I do have my favourite
programs. I read a lot which is not surprising having
chosen librarianship as a career path due to my love
of books.

One of my favourite shops in Melbourne is "Readings,"
you've guessed it - it's a book-shop.

cont'd ...

Talking about sitting on the sidelines.

I work part-time as a volunteer in an aged-care
facility. There's quite a few of us. We take
people to their special organised programs
during the week (music, art) and we have to sit
sort of on the sidelines so that we can take them
back at the conclusion of their programs.

However, we are present and actively involved.
What all of us are doing we're doing with love
and what we're doing has a purpose.

The slippery Liberal senator signore Matteo Canavan has resigned from cabinet. The bloke has duel citizenship, he is an Italian citizen as well. I say he should do the honourable thing and resign from Parliament, no ifs or buts. just "incredible sloppiness" by the Liberal Party, Another headache for Money Bags Malcolm, with the Mad Monk already snapping at his heels. Shameful.

Addio signore Canavan.

Canavan has admitted he has Italian citizenship saying "I am a citizen of Italy"

Dear Paul,

I wrote on the other thread that this is
getting beyond the point of absurdity.

It was the mother of Matt Canavan who
sought Italian citizenship for herself
recently (maybe she wanted an extra
pension) and she signed her adult son up
as well without telling him. He knew
nothing about it, did not agree to it
nor signed anything and being an adult
when she did this I would question the
legality of her actions.

She only told him recently, after what
happened to Senators Ludlum and Waters.
The man has resigned in the meantime, which
I think is ridiculous. This case should go
in front of the courts and quickly.

Dear Foxy,

How interesting: while you sit on the sidelines, watching the program and the aged people, my orchestra is producing the music to entertain them.

---

Regarding Canavan, I am glad that you start seeing the absurdity of it all - this is where obsession with the rule of law and its punitive spirit leads to.

Hi Foxy,

I would love to agree with you, and normally I would. But I see a golden opportunity here,its payback time! Not to be missed, now where is leoj and SM and a few others.
I don't care if his Mum did make him a I'tite, our illustrious forefathers who wrote the Aussie Constitution thought of that eventuality, and all the other eventualities as well... and said; "Nah Aussie for the British and bugger the rest!" Sir Henry will be turning in his grave to think these you know whats are entering our illustrious parliament. If we don't nip this in the bud, next thing you know there will be all sorts wanting to sit in parliament, even gentlemen from outside the empire! Can't have that.

Paul,

After your two slippery MPs lost their seats you must be crowing, and if Matt Canavan is indeed legally an Italian citizen then he must resign from the cabinet and Senate.

The reason that this would have escaped the vetting process is that MC was not born in Italy and neither were his parents, and his mother applied for Italian citizenship on his behalf when he was 26 without his permission or knowledge, unlike slipshod greens who were born with foreign citizenship.

MC still has a slim chance in that as an adult his mother should not have been able to apply on his behalf, and if that is true, then his citizenship is an error which can be back dated to 2006.

Hi Foxy and Shadow,

Now I have had my little bit of frivolity over this nonsense, I must say THIS IS RIDICULOUS. To think here we are in 2017 in Australia, a modern global society, that bears little resemblance to the emerging Australia of 1901, and we are getting our nickers in a knot over what was made into iron clad law, the Constitution, by men who were closer to Arthur Phillip than Malcolm Turnbull. If we can put the petty party politics aside for a moment we have lost two experienced people from the Senate, and are now in danger of losing a third, and given the number of parliamentarians born OS we could lose more. How many ticking time bombs are in our Constitution, which given certain circumstances could blow up in our faces in the future.

Possibly what is need is an on going bipartisan Constitutional Commission to investigate and report, with the ultimate objective of change, where change is necessary.

The paper by John McMillan "CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM IN AUSTRALIA" is most interesting.

http://www.aph.gov.au/~/~/link.aspx?_id=042958A33D7D4CD985246D0974B643AA&_z=z

A bit of history;

The first Federal elections were held over two days, March 29th-30th 1901. 111 men were elected to both houses of parliament, a substantial number foreign born, British mostly. The first assembly was 9th May 1901 in Victoria's Parliament House, Melbourne, this followed a celebration in Melbourne's Exhibition building earlier that day. The Commonwealth of Australia had been declared by a royal proclamation made by Queen Victoria on 17th September 1900, and passed into law by the British Parliament as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, effective 1st January 1901. Which was celebrated with much pomp and ceremony on that date in Centennial Park Sydney.

My question is; How many of those first elected representatives who were foreign born, somewhere between 30 and 40 had renounced their mostly British citizenship in the three months between 1st January 1901 and 29th March 1901? I suspect probably very few if any.

William Morris (Billy) Hughes Australia's longest serving parliamentarian with 52 years service, was born 25th September 1862, Pimlico, England, died 28th October 1952 Sydney Australia. I can find no evidence that Billy renounced his British citizenship in all that time. He may have, but I don't much care. Imagine if Hughes had been outed from Parliament in 1901 for being a Pom, what a loss that would have been to Australia.

Paul1405,

Irrelevancies.

The law exists and the politicians have the choice of explaining desired necessary changes to the public and doing something about it. But so often politicians don't even pretend to do that. They just go ahead with their favoured lobbyists behind closed doors and the next minute, voilà, heaps of tweaks and the whole social landscape changes. So suck it up and never you mind.

Labor's Gillard and her cronies never saw much need to consult with a bovine(sic) public that did not know what was good for them. Along came the changes to de facto (even students sharing digs might have a bureaucrat deeming them to be in a 'relationship'!) and then, much to the chagrin of gays, bureaucrats and courts got to make their 'relationship' decisions for them too!

In this case (s44) the Constitution has some politicians vexed because they might have to consult with the public and worse, some adverts, 'cop this!', or pure spin, might not suffice. Well, whoopey doo!

However there is also the elephant in the room. -Where some politicians and other big wheels may need the reminder that status and contacts (and hey, we all stick together, right?) may not always protect them from scrutiny and allow them to be showing the law and the trusting public the middle finger. That is common enough.

Dear SM,

«MC still has a slim chance in that as an adult his mother should not have been able to apply on his behalf»

With or without his mother, you cannot control the management of other countries.

Since Australia has this S44 and since Australians in general, due to their British heritage, are addicted to following their constitution and laws to the letter like sheep, all that needs to happen is for Zimbabwe to declare the whole world to be their citizens (with a $250,000 payment being the only way to opt out; and voting rights available only for those over 90 who are physically present in Zimbabwe at election-time) and voilà, we got rid of our parliament (and no longer have to pay their salaries)!

Dear Paul,

Thanks for the link and well said.

I totally agree. It is time for this country to get
into the 21st Century. Change is long overdue.
And losing talented Senators because of an archaic
law is beyond absurd as I stated earlier. We need
court action on this situation, and we need it now.

Modernising would require abolishing that Archiac Obstacle to representative government, the Senate.

'Unrepresentative Swil'l according to Keating,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG1khlbqI9k

That would solve the problem of 'Showboats'.

Bob Hawke wanted a maximum of 4 years for a Senator.

Foxy,

"And losing talented Senators because of an archaic
law is beyond absurd "

We lost the Green Senators because they were too stupid to understand the Constitution, such stupidity has no place in Parliament.

44 (i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power

The sting is in < or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power>

There is no getting around those words or their meaning, entitlement, whether one knows of it or not, exists.
People born in Australia, such as Senator Canavan. are well covered by - or entitled- they do not have to know about the entitlement.

Dear Is Mise,

I don't think that the founders of that law way
back in the 1900s meant for it to have such dire
consequences. Those were different times to the
ones in which we now find ourselves and different
circumstances that could not have been foreseen.
All that is being suggested is that what applied
then may no longer apply now. Laws are not
infallible and we have a right to question them
especially when we are in the process of losing
some good Parliamentarians.

Foxy,

" Laws are not infallible"

True, but the Constitution cannot be changed except by the voters of the country and what's more by those same voters

in a majority of the States.

That is a hard thing to do and not worth the money or the effort for those presently affected.
However it needs changing for those in the future, we should not baulk at a dual citizen of Afghanistan, or Turkey, or Indonesia for example; we could trust them to put Australia first and ignore any cultural or religious affiliation that they may feel for their other nationality.
Porci volaverit.

One of the ironies of the Australia Constitution is, it was men of British citizenship. some born in Australia, some not, who formulated the document in the first instance, and it was the British Parliament that ratified it. Australians as a people were never given that opportunity.
The AC did not give women the right to vote, in 1901 women were ineligible to vote in the first Federal election, and they could not stand for Federal Parliament. That changed in 1902 with the passing of The Commonwealth Franchise Act. Four women contested the 1903 election, none were successful. That did not come about until 1943 when Dorothy Tangney became a Senator for Western Australia, and Enid Lyons was elected to the House of Representatives for the seat of Darwin, which was in Tasmania.

p/s Many of those men involved in drawing up the AC soon found themselves a seat in the first Parliament. So they were mostly politicians. The most influential colonial political figure at that time was the Englishman by birth, Sir Henry Parkes (1815-1896), often referred to as 'The Father of the Australian Constitution'.

Paul,

"One of the ironies of the Australia Constitution is, it was men of British citizenship. some born in Australia, some not, who formulated the document in the first instance, and it was the British Parliament that ratified it. Australians as a people were never given that opportunity. "

What's ironic about that?
All Australians were British subjects at the time and the Australian people were quite happy that their Parliament in Britain had ratified their desires.

31 pages of special pleading for the two 'Showboat' Greens, Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters. Who could not be trusted to comply with very simple and specific rules and a similarly simple application for nomination. Despite being cosseted by all around them and by bureaucrats eager to do their bidding.

Both Ludlam and Waters would have to be the most sanctimonious, egocentric, self-serving, overbearing twerps a member of the public might come across in a month of Sundays. They and the Greens put boot into others, but where it comes to themselves, it is a different story.

How is their form and that of the Greens though? It is all care and no responsibility where they are concerned and when they are caught red-handed, 'Poor me and this shouldn't be happening'. One imagines they will enjoy the protection of the politicians 'boys AND GIRLS club' and will be immune from paying back even a solitary red cent. But that is not enough for them, they want it all to be shooed away and swept under the carpet.

The public is being expected to swallow the spin that makes Ludlam and Waters the 'victims'(sic) somehow and the Constitution and its drafters are 'wrong', misled, even bad and the 'racist card' is even being bandies about.

Talk about hard spin! It presents a perfect example, a case study, for the public, especially young up-coming voters, on how spin works, and the cynicism of those who employ it.

Be aware kids, that spin is also part of the tools, and 'dark arts', employed by any nasty SOB with status and power who sets out to take advantage of others and escape the consequences.

that should be 'bandied'.

To add to my last para above, what youth should be also aware of are the risks run by whistleblowers, their tremendous courage and the inevitable, awful, career- and life-ruining consequences for such good citizens.

Politicians usually enjoy ready consensus on anything that benefits politicians and the granting of Australian Honours to politicians and those who have served their short term interests is one such. There are so many examples of that in recent years of political correctness that the Australian Honours are now regarded with suspicion, even scoffed at.

In a better world it would be the members of the public who give unstinting service in others (yes, a few gets Honours to salt the sludge) and civic-minded whistleblowers would be there on the stage, being lauded for their courage.

Need anyone wonder why politicians have such a low standing and now even the Parliament is regarded as a collector of refuse, to be emptied not as often as it should be. The Senate especially is smelling like ripe offal. But even in the face of that, along come Shorten and fool Turnbull to fly the kite for an extra year for themselves, and presumably two terms making eight (8!) for 'long term' senators.

One rule for them and another rule for the public.

Dear Is Mise,

"porci volaverit?"

Well, as it turns out, pigs can fly
(they just don't fly the plane).

Foxy,

You've taken care of the Latin, now address the English bit.

Dear Is Mise,

That's already been done in this discussion.

"Both Ludlam and Waters would have to be the most sanctimonious, egocentric, self-serving, overbearing twerps a member of the public might come across in a month of Sundays."

Unless of course they had met YOU LEO! Then that wouldn't apply.

Leoj, You are inconsistent, because these are Greens you are carrying on like a jackass. Nothing said when your own parties fool, the convicted criminal Rod Culleton, (does it run in the One Nation family), and the mug from Family First, Bob Day were booted.

If you were consistent with your "the law is the law" nonsense, you would be demanding the resignation from Parliament of the Liberal Matt Canavan, regardless of how he became an Italian citizen, through his mother, or through space aliens, it does not matter, the Constitution makes no allowances, if you are an Italian you're out!

Foxy,

Then you might address the fact of the Change Org petition and Ludlam's apparent lack of knowledge of it.

Did none of the Greens see it?
If they did, did they tell him?
If not, why not?
If he knew, and I can't see how he couldn't, then he didn't bother to check, therefore he's a fool, or he did check and therefore he's a liar (par for the Greens).
No one in the Greens Party checked, therefore fools etc, etc.

Dear Is Mise,

I'm not sure what you're on about concerning some
petition run by Change Org. A for profit American
certified corporation.

Scott Ludlum has resigned from Parliament.
Whether he has to pay back anything will I imagine
be decided by the courts. As will the case of Senator
Larissa Waters. The case of Senator Matt Canavan might
also be examined, and who knows who else might yet appear
out of the woodwork so to speak.

Paul1405,

Matt Canavan is going to be putting his case before a court. He should be accorded the rights and courtesies that go with that. Time later to discuss the decisions and summary.

You don't have to shoulder the full load of acting the ass, the Jackass, all of the time, where there might be the odd Jenny to bray along with you.

Is The Remarkable Mr Canavan being entirely truthful with the Australian public? Seem Mr Canavan has been receiving Italian voting papers from the Registry of Italians Residing Abroad for the past 10 years. Is this court action simply a diversionary smoke screen?
The Constitution makes it very clear that people holding dual citizenship are ineligible to stand as representatives in the federal parliament.

Maybe an audit of all MP's to determine their bona fide's could be necessary.

Come off it leoj, your rants are motivated by your hatred of The Greens, not expecting a Coalition member to get trapped, you are now ducking and weaving. An independent audit might uncover more than these three, Eric Abetz for one, might find himself in the firing line as well.

Paul,

"Maybe an audit of all MP's to determine their bona fide's could be necessary."

That'd be the fair thing to do and mighty interesting.

Foxy,

The country of origin of Change Org has nothing to do with it; it's Ludlam's knowledge of the petition that is the point; as I knew of it then I don't see how the Greens didn't know of it, so if they knew and didn't tell him then he was shafted by Greens, if he did know then at the very least he's a dill.

Another development on the "mum done it" story. Ask yourself why would a person born in Australia, suddenly want to apply for Italian citizenship? Seems rather strange at first glance, until you look into the Italian pension and allowances claimable by Italian citizens living abroad, payments that can be made on top of an Australian pension.

From Centrelink " People living in Australia can lodge claims for Italian and Australian pensions with any Centrelink Customer Service Centre. Centrelink will supply all the necessary claim forms."

Paul,

Add to that the convenience of having a European passport, I know because I have an Irish passport and in Europe, I'm a local.
I go to the UK on my Australian one but travel in Europe as an Irish citizen; makes life easy (I have no intention of standing for Office in Australia!!).

I {Issy} have no intention of standing for Office in Australia!

Is that because no one would vote for you? I would vote for you Issy, you only pretend to be my class enemy, Deep down, very deep down that is, I know there dwells inside a little Green Issy, just wanting to be free. Any chance?

Or can we expect to see you in the Icelandic Parliament very soon? How are you with the Norse Icelandic dialect? No problem, they speak in tongues in Iceland anyway, and they don't mind if you have citizenship of Swaziland, no nowhere else. Otherwise they offer you up in sacrifice to Odious the Norse of Parliament.

Back to the topic of The Remarkable Mr Canniving, I find it incongruous that my mum would, out of the blue, take out foreign citizenship and include me in the deal and not once, even in passing mention it to me. Then there is the point of those voting papers. I would be asking Mum "what's this all about?" Agree?

The court business is a smoke screen to keep Mr Canniving in Parliament as long as possible. He has admitted to holding Italian citizenship, and he knows full well, he is sitting in the Parliament and defying the Constitution at the same time. No ifs or buts! The Liberals are hoping the court will allow Canniving to wriggle out of it.

Well, well, well, things move fast in Canberra. Now One Nation nong Malcolm Roberts has admitted that he held British citizenship the day he was elected to Parliament. No ifs or buts nong, out you go!

Chief Liberal snake, backstabber Christopher Pyne has called on Coalition MP's with foreign background to examine their own circumstances and let us know if there are any problems. Yeah, right Pyne. do you think the public is that stupid to fall for your three card trick.

Where are the 'Usual Suspects' on this?

Dear Is Mise,

You still haven't answered my question as to what
point you are trying to make about the Change Org
petition. Why would Scott Ludlum have paid any
attention to some petition when he resigned from
Parliament and now it's up to the courts to decide
what happens next. Politicians have lots of
petitions from all sorts of nutters on all sorts of
issues. So what.

You can go on whinging about the petition all you
like - I've moved on. You obviously have too much time
on your hands.

What about Eric Abetz, Malcolm Roberts, and Mat Canavan?
And there's probably more to come.

Not a peep.

Hi Foxy,

This feels like the French Revolution, and we are Robespierrem dealing with the Chamber of Deputies. I accuse Guillaume Shorta of being a non citizen of the république. And you know where that leads. Accusation should be enough proof for The Revolutionary Tribunal to pass judgement. Agree?

Dear Paul,

Things are getting rather ridiculous.

I think I need to take a break and go on holidays
somewhere beautiful.

cont'd ...

New Zealand comes to mind (smiley face).

Foxy,

"You still haven't answered my question as to what
point you are trying to make about the Change Org
petition..... You can go on whinging about the petition all you
like - I've moved on."

If that's the case why did you remark about my alleged not answering your question?

"What about Eric Abetz, Malcolm Roberts, and Mat Canavan?
And there's probably more to come.

Not a peep"

The Change Org petition was three years ago, surely some Greens saw it and told him?
The point being, Foxy, that he should have checked.
Regarding 'not a peep', just read a few of my posts!!

Paul,

The issue of Mr. Canavan should be relatively easy to resolve.

Option 1, His mum obtained citizenship on his behalf without his knowledge and consent when he was 25. As this requires written consent to apply for citizenship for a person over 18, the application is null and void.

Option 2 Mr. Canavan is lying, and participated in the application, and should be tossed out on his backside.

Foxy,

The issue with Mr. Roberts is that he applied to revoke his citizenship in May 2016 and received written confirmation in Dec 2016. The question is what was his status in July 2016 at the election? If his citizenship was revoked, then there is no issue, if it was not, then the issue is whether he took sufficient action to revoke his citizenship.

With regard Eric Abetz, it is clear that at the 2016 elections that he was not a dual citizen, thus his status as a senator is valid. The only possible implications would be whether he might possibly be required to repay his salary from 96.

With regards dual citizenship, I can see valid reasons why this should be a barrier to being a federal MP, and certainly none sufficient to justify a referendum.

SR.

You keep banging on about Abbott, but the greater risk is that lying weasel Shorten whose populism, half truths and shady union past and connections are the greatest threat.

This Shorten?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGUAqb9xMU0

or perhaps this Shorten?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFELLK8htKM

Want more?

If we're going to point out the flaws of one
party leader then in order for some balance
we need to do the same for the other one as well.

Much has been written about our party leaders.
Malcolm Turnbull is our current Prime Minister.
He gets to do Prime Ministerial things like give
speeches, travel to summits. He sounds dignified
and of course important and he's very good at it.
He is still the same confident, eloquent man we all
fell for.

But there's this uneasy feeling hovering around.
All the things he said he cared about seem to have fallen
away. And this makes one wonder - what is he passionate
about (apart from retaining his position) and what are
his values. Inside, is there anything at all?

Jeff Kennett pointed out -
we shall have to wait and see if either one of them are
prepared to be genuine leaders.

Sad state of affairs indeed.

cont'd ...

Perhaps we should all take another look at other
party choices and reflect more seriously when we
vote as Kennett suggests.

SM, being the legal eagle you claim to be. What section of the Constitution covers the "Mum excuse" and what other section covers the "the Poms were a bit slack" excuse. The Constitution makes no provision for these, or any other excuse. The only consideration under the Constitution is, if you were a foreign citizen the day you were elected YOU ARE OUT! NO IFS OR BUTS!
Ludlum and Waters could have stalled things with a couple of half baked excuses like that pair of conservative snakes are doing now, but they chose to do the honourable thing.

Paul,

Being the legal weevil that you are, I guess that I am going to have to use small words to explain the point I just made in my last post.

"Option 1, His mum obtained citizenship on his behalf without his knowledge and consent when he was 25. As this requires written consent to apply for citizenship for a person over 18, the application is null and void."

In small words: If Canavan was 25, the only legal way he could have become a citizen of Italy would be if he applied himself. Therefore, if his mum applied on his behalf, the granting of citizenship to him was not legal and therefore null and void. Thus he is not a legal Italian citizen and thus he can remain in the senate.

Get it? or do you need a 9 yr old to explain it to you?

Dear Shadow Minister,

Ah, but is the man telling the truth?

Talking about 9 year olds. This sounds like
a nine year old's standard excuse - "I did
my homework, but the dog ate it."
"My mum took out the citizenship, without
telling me."

Sure she did!

The truth could well be somewhere in between.

Most of us wouldn't like to upset our mother, right?
In fact, that would go against the ten commandments: "Honour thy father and thy mother".

So it is quite reasonable that Canavan chose to not pick a fight with his mother, who for whatever private reasons wanted him to become an Italian citizen. It is quite believable that he had no other motive whatsoever.

It is also possible that his mother told him "please sign my insurance document here" and trusting his Mom, he signed without looking at the paper.

Rather than an experienced politician, you need to take the point of view of a 25 year-old, good and loyal son.

So why did he lie?

Can you honestly state with hand on heart that you wouldn't have also lied in similar circumstances? Would you rather betray your mother? Would you rather sacrifice your career (especially if your Mom chose it for you)? There are only a few saints among us - and none of them are in parliament!

I'd rather vote for someone who loves and has allegiance to his/her mother than for someone who loves and has allegiance to a nation!

To get the spirit, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w82W1eRBug and read the translated lyrics in the next post:

The parade approaches, the loudspeaker cheers,
The parade approaches, here also is the officer.
All the soldiers are walking on the left foot,
Only my Chaimke is stepping on the right!

Because all the soldiers,
Yes, all the soldiers
Are on the wrong foot, without shame!
Only my Chaimke,
Just my Chaimke
Walks on the right foot!

They come here tanned and strong
They wear a beret of black cloth.
All the soldiers have the symbol on the front,
Only my Chaimke has the symbol behind!

Because all the soldiers,
Yes, all the soldiers
Mistake the symbol, without shame!
Only my Chaimke,
Just my Chaimke
Wears the cap correctly!

The loudspeaker commands: "Raise the rifles!"
The officer calls out: "Everyone - look right"!
All the soldiers have a rifle in their arm, but
Only my Chaimke suddenly shoots a bullet.

Because all the soldiers,
Yes, all the soldiers
Are afraid here, that's obvious!
Only my Chaimke,
Just my Chaimke
Knows how to emit a bullet!

Left, left turn, cheers the loudspeaker.
The whole crowd cheers with joy.
All the soldiers turn suddenly to the left
Only my Chaimke goes on walking straight.

Because all the soldiers,
Yes, all the soldiers
Mistake the way!
Only my Chaimka,
Just my Chaimka
Knows the route well!

Here he approaches, coming straight to me
He raises his hand, how cute my son is!
All the soldiers do not turn their heads,
Only Chaimke shouts: "Hey Mom, it's me!"

Because all the soldiers,
Yes, all the soldiers
They hate their Mom all the time!
Only my Chaimka,
Just my Chaimka
Truly loves his mother!

Shadow, being the Italian legal expert you are, how do you know that under Italian law "this (citizenship) requires written consent to apply for citizenship for a person over 18". Not always the case in some instances no consent is required. For example if you and I had been married in Bongostand, and with me being the hubby, and you being the little woman. I would only have to repeat three times "I divorce thee", "I divorce thee", "I divorce thee" while hopping on one leg backwards, and presto we are divorced! You have no say in the matter.
The High Court of Australia has no jurisdiction over Italian law, if Italian law says your man Mr Conniver is an I'tite then he is an I'tite, end of story and OUT HE GOES!

Yuyutsu, talking of saints, remember Saint Paul, top guy, salt of the Earth. Numero uno (Italian for number one) in my book. It all happened on the road to Damascus, Paul never had a say in it.

Foxy,

As I said previously:

"Option 2 Mr. Canavan is lying, and participated in the application, and should be tossed out on his backside."

As Canavan clearly has Italian citizenship, the onus is on him to show that it was granted in error if he can't, then he must go.

Paul,

To alleviate your ignorance, my little secret to knowing Italian law is simply to look it up. I'm sure with a little practice you too can have facts at your finger tips even though they might contradict your beloved prejudices.

So Shadow, you being effluent when it comes to Italian law, I am merely fluent, so I'll wait for your transcript of the relevant section of law. Addio amico.

Paul,

It is pity that you are not fluent in English, as one is not fluent in Law. Secondly, my recommendation was that you develop your google skills and do your own research.

A little hint is that people over the age of 18 are adults and their parents are no longer able to apply on their behalf, exactly the same as just about every country in the world.

I look forward to you working with facts instead of conjecture.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Barnaby Joyce has stated that Mat Canavan's mother
has shown the documentation to Canavan regarding
Italian Citizenship - and they were unsigned by
Canavan. If he has copies of this documentation
he should produce it - instead of Mr Joyce and
everyone else having to take Canavan's word for it.

It appears that Italian Citizenship was discussed
with the family prior to the mother taking out
Italian Citizenship so Canavan was aware that she was
going to do it.

Canavan should simply provide the documentation in
Court and let the Court decide on this issue.

and those Pollies of Irish descent are now doing a bit of checking as well!!

Foxy,

As I have said previously, the default position is that Canavan as an Italian citizen cannot be a senator. To retain his seat, he will have to show compelling evidence that his case falls outside the original intent of the Constitution. This is going to require a lot more than just his word, and even then his case is tenuous at best.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Glad that we can agree on this.