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).