"Swearing-in

The Constitution provides that every Member of the House of Representatives, before taking his or her seat, must make and subscribe an oath or affirmation of allegiance before the Governor-General or some person authorised by the Governor-General.[58] The oath or affirmation takes the following form:

OATH
I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!
AFFIRMATION
I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law.[59]
The oath of allegiance need not necessarily be made on the authorised version of the Bible, although this has been the common practice. A Member may recite the oath while holding another form of Christian holy book, or, in respect of a non–Christian faith, a book or work of such a nature. The essential requirement is that every Member taking an oath should take it in a manner which affects his or her conscience regardless of whether a holy book is used or not."

Can an avowed Republican or an anti-Monarchist, make this assertion of allegiance to the Queen in good faith having declared that they intend to break their allegiance?"

Also moslem members of parliament swear on the Koran.
Catch, isn't there always a catch;
The Koran permits someone to lie, swear an a false oath to an infidel
if it is to the advantage of a moslem.

It is a defense for treason or false swearing.

Most politicians swearing any sort of oath is a joke. They don't even tell the truth very often. And, they are not much different from the people who vote for them

Society has become so fake that truth actually bothers people.

The purpose of an oath or affirmation is not totally useless, at least in theory. In court, for example, one has to give an oath or affirmation to tell the truth, which avoids tiresome denials later if caught in a lie.
Not so sure about oaths and affirmations in Parliament, because politicians can lie often and without consequence.
Part of the problem is mainly discussion about "values" rather than discussion about evidence and logic-based policy.
In theory, we public are supposed to punish the dishonest politicians at the ballot box. The problem is that there are so few "swing voters", so most get away with it.
So lots of baseless claims are made, and many fallacies in logic, and of course no proper evidence or citations of evidence presented.
So the best tactic is to practice critical thinking with no "sacred cows". That means NONE.
We all have some biases, and some of the worst are ones we are not aware of.
And if you ain't a billionaire yourself, why on Earth would you vote for one?

Dear Is Mise,

I think you will find the operative words are 'according to law'.

"Rule According to Law

The rule of law requires the government to exercise its power in accordance with well-established and clearly written rules, regulations, and legal principles. A distinction is sometimes drawn between power, will, and force, on the one hand, and law, on the other. When a government official acts pursuant to an express provision of a written law, he acts within the rule of law. But when a government official acts without the imprimatur of any law, he or she does so by the sheer force of personal will and power."

So those who are observing the law undertake to do so until if and when the law is changed.

Not sure what the issue is.

No person should be in Parliament unless they have fully understood our constitution and with sincere heart intends to follow it. The only way the constitution can be changed is by referendum. Those that intending changing the constitution should not hold office under the constitution.

Steele,

The issue is that certain members of Parliament lied, under oath, that they give allegiance to the Queen, simple as that.

"The only way the constitution can be changed is by referendum."

Not quite. The federal government has unconstitutionally hijacked many functions from state governments. The actual Constitution doesn't change, but unelected, undemocratic judges 'find' meanings in the document that were not apparent at the time of writing or before the federal government wanted to go rogue.

Me thinks Issy wants to stack the parliament with like minded monarchists. Crusty old white male christian conservatives calling all the shots. Vote for the Rev Fred Nile, he fits the bill.

"No person should be in Parliament unless they have fully understood our constitution" Now, that would be limited to no one as I don't believe there is even a single person who fully understands our constitution, including those who wrote it, and they are all dead anyway. What a ridiculous statement.

The forums all unknowing Islamic theologian Bazz, chimes in with one of his usual anti Muslim smears.

I like the reference to "the authorised version of the Bible,". What's in the unauthorised version. Killing and hatred, sorry that's in the authorised version.

Ephesians 4:31; Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. There goes question time.

Paul,I

I only want people of honesty in Parliament and as all the Greens MsP favour a Republic, as a prelude to dictatorship, then they have sworn false oaths and are thus perjurers.
Not surprising.

It's the "honourable" that gets to me. In some cases 'honable' would be more apt.

The only oath ought to be, to truly represent, as best they can, the people of their electorate.

How can one truly represent their electorate if most of them do not like the constitution and/or the Queen while they are sworn to defy them? Alternately, if most people of the electorate do approve the constitution and the Queen, then the oath to represent them already includes all that and nothing else is necessary!

Dear Josephus,

You write;

“No person should be in Parliament unless they have fully understood our constitution and with sincere heart intends to follow it. The only way the constitution can be changed is by referendum. Those that intending changing the constitution should not hold office under the constitution.”

That is one of the more inane utterances I have ever heard from you and that is saying something.

People who swear to uphold the laws of the land can have no role in changing them? How preposterous is that. Parliament is literally our law making body in our democracy.

Dear Is Mise,

You write;

“The issue is that certain members of Parliament lied, under oath, that they give allegiance to the Queen, simple as that.”

I have already taken the pains to explain to you the pivotal part of the equation is 'according to law'. You have reverted to a mantra without addressing the point I put to you.

I would have thought you started the thread to get the opinion of others on your contention. It seems instead you were just after affirmation. Well old chap, you have come to the wrong place. This isn't a strictly royalist site.

So in future do try and restrict what you post to issues that you are prepared to have tested. It makes for far better conversation.

Paul, no Christian is expected under pain of death to support the
ancient texts in the bible. This not the case with the koran.
To dispute the Koran is blasphemy punished by death and is CURRENT practise.

Steele,

You quoted,
"Rule According to Law

The rule of law requires the government to exercise its power in accordance with well-established and clearly written rules, regulations, and legal principles. .."

That is the rule of law ref. Government, surely the rule of law ref. the Members is that they swear an oath required by law, and that they mean what they swear.

Anyone who swears allegiance to the Queen whilst engaged publicly (or privately) in subverting that allegiance is a liar and a perjurer and is thus not a fit person to sit in Parliament; or do you condone such perjury?

Dear Is Mise,

When I was conscripted, I was forced to make an oath of allegiance, which was clearly against my conscience.

As there was not enough time to let each conscript say the full oath, we were made to stand in line then pass one-by-one in front of our officer, saying just the words, "I swear".

So I did, and after saying "I swear" loudly, I added quietly so no one could hear, "that I am not a cat"!

Yuyutsu,

No one is conscripted into Federal Parliament, all the Members go there willingly and allow big bucks to be spent in the process.

They are not forced to swear the Oath, they do so willingly and those that know that they will not uphold it are liars and perjurers.

There is a law against perjury and it should be upheld.

When you were conscripted, I presume in Australia, all that you needed to do was refuse, on religious grounds, to take the oath and you'd have been back in civvy street in a flash.

I advised a young bloke to grow a beard and when he was called up to tell them that he had made a binding religious vow not to shave but that he was happy and willing to serve but must keep his beard. OUT!

Dear Is Mise,

Good god man why is this such a struggle for you. These are our elected representatives who are the interface between the people and the government. They are the law makers. They are different to public servants, or to the military.

It is part of what makes our democracy alive and adaptive to changes.

You are now being thick. Time to reboot old chap.

Otherwise in your world the only possibility of advancing to a republic would be through revolution. Is that really what you want?

Let it go.

Steele,

Is it perjury to knowingly swear a false oath?

No MP is forced to swear the Oath, they have a choice, they could state that swearing allegiance to the Queen is against their principles and that they refuse to do so.

However they do not, so they knowingly perjure themselves, why is that?

You quoted law, perhaps you can shew us the specific law that allows Members to commit perjury?

Is there a exemption for MsP to break the law?

Do tell.

Dear Is Mise,

«When you were conscripted, I presume in Australia, all that you needed to do was refuse, on religious grounds»

I thank you for your consideration and care, but this was not in Australia and no such option was available, a beard too would be of no use. It was one of my main reasons for escaping to Australia.

«all the Members go there willingly and allow big bucks to be spent in the process.»

All right, so I don't need to pity them, but what about their electorate? Why should they be deprived of representation?

Suppose 90% of a given electorate disagree with the basics of the constitution (not necessarily with the monarchy as that was only an example, let us say as a counter-example that they wish to become part of England and be directly ruled by the Queen and the Queen alone) and knowingly elect a representative to represent them and their views. Why would their representative be required to take a crippling oath that prevents him/her from duly representing them?

Yuyutsu,

They are not required to take a crippling oath, they can refuse and rather than commit perjury they should refuse.
Refusal is the only honourable course of action.

I advised a young bloke to grow a beard
Is Mise,
Who needs any kind of Govt with Patriots like that ?

Dear Is Mise,

«Refusal is the only honourable course of action.»

You have a point here!

I suppose the same also applies to their constituents, so they too ought to refuse to pay taxes and follow the laws of a country which doesn't allow them to be represented. It does remind me of the situation in Hong Kong, where only those who agree in principle with the central government are allowed to represent the voters.

---

Dear Individual,

«Who needs any kind of Govt with Patriots like that ?»

Is Mise did the right thing in this case, which is not only compassionate but also happens to be a very patriotic act:

Who needs to have a desperately disgruntled soldier in their army who, at the critical point in the thick of battle, would turn his gun backward at his commanders?

Individual,

So, do you condone perjury in general or only in Parliament?

If the candidate for election tells his potential constituents that he will not take the Oath then they can vote him in and send the Nation a message or they can vote for someone else, they aren't being robbed of anything.

Why are our elected leaders swearing allegiance to the head of a foreign power. What's the Queen of England to us anyway? On apar with the King of Jordan as far as I'm concerned. May as well swear allegiance to that joker as well, while we're at it.

I know an old monarchists like Issy needs the bloody old stick in England to cow tail to. But its about time Australia assumed it own identity in the world, its the 21st century, not the 19th, and Britain and the British have no real significance to the majority of Australians. Take one look at that bunch of hereditary inbred's and you would choose a republic any day.

Paul,

As you well know they swear allegiance to the Queen of Australia, so is it your personal opinion that it's OK to commit perjury or are you writing as a Green?

I'm surprised that anyone is defending perjurers and liars.

Salutations Issy,

I must admit I was on my 12th beer for the day, or was that the 14th, when I wrote that masterpiece of a comment above. The King of Jordan Abdullah II, where did I dig him up from, that should have read the King of Saudi Arabia, King Salman, more you kinda guy, and he's got oil, please forgive me. This whole discussion of yours has absolutely no relevance to the average Aussie, he/she don't give a rats about the Queen of England, unless of course they read the 'No Idea' or 'Woman's Monthly' mags to get the latest goss on that number one dysfunctional Pommie family, who have no oil.

My thought is we should drop that whole anachronism of swearing allegiance to the Pommie Queen, or any other hereditary wombat, no disrespect to King Abdullah and King Salman who have oil intended, right out of the picture. Over to you!

Dear Paul,

For your information, King Abdullah II of Jordan, like his late father King Hussein before him, is a kind and liberal man who serves his people well. Jordan is peaceful under his rule, unlike most of the Middle-East, and is relatively prosperous (despite the economic setback of having to host 1.4 million Syrian refugees). Mind you, he does not drink alcohol nor murders his journalists. Without him Jordan would be hostage to Muslim extremists and look much like the violent and impoverished West Bank and Gaza nearby.

As a native Australian you may express your desire to do away with my Queen, but as an immigrant, on becoming an Australian citizen I promised my allegiance to Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors and so it will remain even if Australia becomes a republic.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Yuo wrote;

"As a native Australian you may express your desire to do away with my Queen, but as an immigrant, on becoming an Australian citizen I promised my allegiance to Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors and so it will remain even if Australia becomes a republic."

And therein I submit lies the difference between an Australian and an Australian citizen.

Yet it is an interesting take from you given your philosophical/political stance on nation states and governments in general. How do you reconcile both positions?

«Yet it is an interesting take from you given your philosophical/political stance on nation states and governments in general. How do you reconcile both positions?»

Promises need to be kept. It is not a matter of liking it or not.

That said, our gracious Queen, unlike the Canberra regime, is kind and unimposing. She does not interfere with our lives, but just lovingly sits there allowing us to look up to Her and love Her as well. An Australian head-of-state is not likely to be as kind and patient.

Nobody forces the Members to take the oath but those who advocate a Republic do so knowing that they commit perjury.

As they are such willing perjurers how can we trust them to do anything honestly?

Their word can never be trusted.

Why do they do it?

As a native Australian you may express your desire to do away with my Queen, but as an immigrant, on becoming an Australian citizen I promised my allegiance to Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors and so it will remain even if Australia becomes a republic.

Its good of you to stand by your word Yuyutsu,
I'm a 9 or 10th generation Aussie,
My family helped build this country and fought the nations wars.
- And I'm not constrained by any such promises -

My loyalty is with the Aussie citizens who don't identify as immigrants, not the Queen.

The following is additionally sworn by the PM, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries,

I, (name), do swear that I will well and truly serve the people of Australia in the office of (position) and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia. So help me God!"

Again those who so swear and advocate a Republic commit perjury and are liars and not to be trusted.

Dear Is Mise,

«As they are such willing perjurers how can we trust them to do anything honestly?»

So much for trusting a politician to begin with, even without perjury...
Scorpions may be cute, but cuddling them is another thing.

«Again those who so swear and advocate a Republic commit perjury and are liars and not to be trusted.»

I wonder about your feelings towards anyone who, while committing perjury, is not a liar: Suppose they declared loud and clear in parliament: "Look guys, I am about to say those words which the law requires, but know well that I totally despise their meaning and have no intention to follow through, I will only utter this formula so that I can sit here and repeal the need for anyone to utter it ever again"?

Yuyutsu,

None of them have ever had the guts to say that.

Issy, did PM Turnballs swear that guff about the Queen of England when he took over from the Mad Monk? After all Turnballs led the republican side in the past, how does he stack up with you. All these pompous anachronisms need throwing out with the rest of the dirty dishwater. Politicians can swear allegiance to AUSTRALIA, and not to some old tart in ENGLAND. How about it?

Paul,

Turnbull was an avowed Republican and thus a perjurer and a liar. when he swore the oaths of office etc.

Dear Paul,

«Politicians can swear allegiance to AUSTRALIA, and not to some old tart in ENGLAND. How about it?»

Politicians' allegiance is already given - to the devil!

The question is whom you want in parliament - politicians or representatives?

If you rather have representatives, then they should only swear allegiance to those they represent!

Dear Is Mise,

Mate, this is torturous.

"According to the law".

You claim;

“They are not forced to swear the Oath”

Of course they are, the law is very specific;

“The Constitution provides that every Member of the House of Representatives, before taking his or her seat, must make and subscribe an oath or affirmation of allegiance before the Governor-General or some person authorised by the Governor-General.”

You seem to want law-breakers in parliament or to exclude perhaps half of those there. And this would be your version of representative democracy would it?

You have a bee in your bonnet, time to let it out as you have become a foolish sight dancing about waving your hands in frenzied panic.

Dear SteeleRedux,

«Mate, this is torturous.»

Yes it is. The legislators of yore created a torturous situation.

I disagree with this requirement to take an oath of allegiance, but I do agree with Is Mise that cutting corners is not the answer.

The law as it stands does not require any representative to make an oath, because it does not require any representative to take their seat.

Should half the representatives be absent from parliament, their seats vacant, that would make Australia a laughing-stock, with any claim of "democracy" or "the will of the people" received with a roar of laughter. The remaining legislators, unless they wish to be remembered in history as dictators, would be faced with two options: legislating against laughter, making it illegal, or repealing the requirement for an oath. I believe that here in Australia they will choose the latter.

Yuyutsu,

Thou hast hit the holding device on the cranium!!

Aspiring Members should tell the electorate that they will not take the Oath and thus not take their seat if elected.
If the voters agree that there should be no oath then they can make a protest vote and elect the candidate.
As Yuyutsu says if enough voters so protest then the Parliament would be forced to go to the people to change the Constitution.

The real reason that Republican MsP perjure themselves is that if they don't do so they don't get paid and having worked so hard for a lucrative job, honour goes out the window.

You keep harping on the phrase "...according to law", well, which law absolves perjurers from committing a crime by so false swearing?

The Parliament is, on some occasions the highest Court in the land, so is it not ridiculous to have perjurers able to sit in judgement on someone who if they commit perjury, when being judged by perjurers, can be jailed?

Issy being the evidence based man you claim to be, please provide evidence that any member of parliament was anti monarchy at the time of swearing, what ever it was they swore. Of course you don't want progressive people democratically elected to Parliament, but would much prefer stodgy old conservatives running the show, Since the voters return a majority of progressives to govern, time after time, you see this nonsense as a way to cut that off.

Enough said on this ridiculous topic.

Dear Is Mise,

I was not aware that the wording of the oath was in the Australian constitution - I mistakenly assumed that it was a matter of simple legislation.

As I read it again, I believe that "according to law" refers to the method and order of succession ("Her heirs and successors according to law"), rather than to any laws governing legislators and/or ordinary citizens.

Perjury, on the other hand, is determined by ordinary law rather than by the constitution, so that could be changed even without a referendum by adding a clause in criminal code such as "unless the oath/affirmation was preceded by a clear announcement by the person who made that oath/affirmation that they do not intend to abide by it".

Still there is the religious aspect against breaking an oath, which no legislation can change, but this can be overcome by making an affirmation instead. Another option is to elect a Jewish representative, who can then be absolved of their oath by the "Kol Nidrei" prayer on the eve of the following day of atonement (Yom-Kippur, around the end of September or beginning of October, so they would still need to keep their oath for the remaining part of the year).

---

Dear Paul,

«please provide evidence that any member of parliament was anti monarchy at the time of swearing»

That should not matter (in other words, it is a red-herring): the oath of allegiance to her majesty has little to do with the monarchy/republic quarrel. A representative who makes this oath is bound by it for the rest of their life, even if their views change, even long after they leave parliament, even if Australia subsequently becomes a republic, even if Australia was submerged by the ocean and no longer existed (assuming they were somehow saved).

Paul,

Why do you consider it ridiculous to point out that some MsP are perjurers?

You want an example?

Turnbull openly advocated an Australian Republic before he was elected, therefore he could not offer true allegiance to the Queen, but he swore an oath that he did so; therefore he committed perjury.

Is that the sort of person that you want in Parliament?

I guess it is because all of the Greens MsP are in the same boat, they are all liars like Turnbull.

Dear Is Mise,

«Turnbull openly advocated an Australian Republic before he was elected, therefore he could not offer true allegiance to the Queen»

Why is that? Has Her Majesty the Queen ever objected to an Australian republic?

You and I may not like that idea of a republic, but I don't believe that Her Majesty cares either way.

Dear Yuyutsu,

It appears we may be a little more fawning than most;

“Members of the judiciary (justices of the peace, district judges, circuit judges etc.) swear their allegiance to the queen, and to her heirs and successors; police officers in England and Wales pledge their allegiance to the queen, but not her heirs and successors. Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) do not swear an oath of allegiance. The PSNI in 2001 replaced the Royal Ulster Constabulary, whose members pledged their allegiance to the queen, but not her heirs and successors. The Scottish police have never pledged allegiance. Members of the Privy Council only swear allegiance to the "Queen's majesty", not to the queen's heirs and successors.”

"Although an oath of allegiance is required of members of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, there is no requirement for members of the Northern Ireland Assembly to take an oath of allegiance, or any other oath, nor is there any form of voluntary oath prescribed for those who may wish to swear one. However, members are required to sign the Assembly's roll of membership, designate their identity as "Nationalist", "Unionist" or "Other", and take a Pledge of Office. Ministers can be removed from office if the responsibilities of the pledge are not met."

Wikipedia

Why can't we be like Northern Island I wonder?

"I guess it is because all of the Greens MsP are in the same boat, they are all liars"

Issy, provide evidence that all Greens MP's are liars. Put up or shut up! On another thread we know who the liar is, don't we.

Paul,

As all Greens MsP advocate a Republic then when they swear allegiance to the Queen they are liars and perjurers.

Steele,

Why can't we be like Northern Island I wonder"

Because we haven't been under a religious dictatorship, police state and had near civil war.

For the Norther Ireland Accord to work the Oath of Allegiance had to be removed.

"As all Greens MsP advocate a Republic"

In that case Issy, it should be easy for you to refer to quotes from each federal Greens MP advocating a republic, or are you the liar? Is it another PORKY AWARD for you. I'll go alone with your Turnball's claim. Your assumptions are not necessarily the truthful fact. I favour a republic myself, but that does not necessarily apply to all Greens. Just like some Shooters party members favour killing as a way of getting their rock off, but maybe not all.

Members of Parliament merely react to the members of the Public hence the constant schamozzle !

Paul,

All Greens MsP toe the party line.

"Australian Greens Victoria
EVENTS
Greens set out five steps to republic by 2020
2016-06-13

Greens Leader Richard Di Natale is marking the Queen's Birthday by setting out a 5-step path to allowing Australians to serve as our own heads of state.
"We are a mature, independent, confident nation and it's time to stand on our own two feet " Senator Di Natale said.
"It's on days like today that many Australians remember the failed republic referendum of 1999. The Greens have a clear plan to ensure history doesn't repeat itself."

Will that do?

Want an example of a lie?

"It's on days like today that many Australians remember the failed republic referendum of 1999. The Greens have a clear plan to ensure history doesn't repeat itself."

The Referendum was a success because it revealed the will of the majority of the Australian voters.
Referendums cannot fail and one would expect that Di Nastoli would know this fact, so his statement is a lie.

Nah, Issy,

One down nine to go. Try for number two at moment its only a 90% lie on your part.

BTW only 3 days to go before that republic of 2020 begins. More evidence required, to prove ALL Greens MP's.

Paul,

I stand corrected and it is heartwarming to know that, as you say, most of the Green's MsP do not support the idiotic views of their purported leader.

Thanks for clearing that up.

"most of the Green's MsP do not support the idiotic views of their purported leader."

Now Issy, I never said that, they may well do, but you being an evidence man I thought you would be able to show where each and every Greens MP has advocated a republic, before swearing that ridiculous oath you prattle on about.

Now what would be idiotic is some silly old fool bowing down to an equally silly old woman from England. If by chance you were to come before that dear old stick, how would you act?

Paul,

Greet her respectfully, after all we are relateId.
I must admit though that the first time that I swore allegiance to her it was bit doubtful as I enlisted using my dead brother's birth certificate as I was underage.
However when I was old enough I owned up and the original oath stood; all that happened was that I lost a few years seniority.

But what ever the pros and cons are of swearing allegiance, the fact remains that those who so swear with the intention of undermining her position in our nation are liars and perjurers and not fit to sit in Parliament, even in the gallery.

Paul,

Will this do?

"Aims.
The Australian Greens want,

12. Australia to be declared a republic with an Australian citizen as head of state."
http://greens.org.au/policies/constitutional-reform-and-democracy

I like that "declared" bit, no reference to anything as unsuitable as a Referendum on changing the Constitution, you know, democratically.

S-H-O-C-K-I-N-G! Earl Issy, I can't believe you lied before Her Majesty! In the good old days you would have been dispatched to the Tower forthwith, given a well deserved flogging, before your head and the rest of your miserable carcass had been quickly parted with the axe! I can't believe it, you lied to Her Majesty! Another PORKY AWARD for you! Now that lie qualifies you for a very special Golden Porky, do you feel honoured, wear it with pride old salt. Unfortunately Issy, there also goes your Earldom, your back with the rest of us common folk now.

Would Australians actually be capable of running a Republic ? What I have witnessed from LNP/ALP/Green etc we're still better off as it is presently. Neither Party's sense Dept lives up to the rigours of a Republic !

Paul,

I already have a title, from Scotish descent, 'though I don't use it.

Did you miss the bit about the Greens wanting to have a republic?

How inconvenient of them to put it on their website.

How about we get politicians to swear an oath to be honest?

As if!

Dear Mr. Opinion,

«How about we get politicians to swear an oath to be honest?»

The question below should be added to the candidate nomination form, this information will be published before the elections, then successful candidates will need to take an oath according to the box they ticked:

"If Elected, my first loyalty will be to:

1. Myself
2. Whoever pays me more
3. God
4. My church
5. My parents
6. My spouse
7. My political party
8. Australia
9. China
10. Her Majesty the Queen
11. My state within Australia
12. Those who elected me
13. My electorate as a whole
"

Any elected member who can no longer follow what they declared must immediately resign. Failure to do so would be a criminal offense.

Good on you Mr O, some here are out of touch with reality. Such abstract nonsense, swear and oath to be honest, who's going to swear an oath to be dishonest. How about an oath to like strawberry ice cream, or Frank Sinatra records. Some people here are all worked up expecting politicians to swear meaningless oaths.

Dear Paul,

«Some people here are all worked up expecting politicians to swear meaningless oaths.»

As I suggested above, let members of parliament swear oaths that are meaningful to them, whatever they are, so we all know in advance, before electing them, what their intentions are, then let them stick to those intentions for which they were elected.

And let us go back to the ancient form of oath that sends a powerful subliminal message to the brain:

"If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy" [Psalms 137:5-6]

In other words, let me have a stroke if I do not keep my promise to my electors!

Hi Yuyutsu,

Do you agree that swearing an oath to an old woman in England is archaic, and irrelevant to Australia in the 21st centenary.

Paul,

"Do you agree that swearing an oath to an old woman in England
[Great Britain] is archaic, and irrelevant to Australia in the 21st centenary"

Of course it's archaic, but do you believe that lying and perjury are acceptable for members of Parliament, Greens included?

How about we get ScuMo to swear an oath not to smirk at others misfortune?

As if.

Dear Paul,

«Do you agree that swearing an oath to an old woman in England is archaic, and irrelevant to Australia in the 21st centenary.»

Not surprising to hear you making this claim given that you want to prevent people who are 80 years old or over from driving!

You would probably also hate Leviticus 19:32 - "Stand up in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord.", or Job 12:12 - "With the ancient is wisdom; and in length of days understanding.", perhaps you would rather even turn the aged into compost, but I still do respect the well-matured elderly and their wisdom.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "irrelevant" - after all, if it is indeed irrelevant, then how come that you, while living in Australia and in the 21st century, are still so concerned about it?

Admittedly I make a little celebration when the highest digit (the 100,000's) of my car's odometer turns and all the other digits change from '9' to '0', yet I have no reason to celebrate when the top digit (1000's) of the arbitrary Gregorian calendar changes, which means nothing to me. What was good in the 20th century did not stop being good just because that digit changed. Times were in fact better in the 20th century before we got entangled with this digital jungle.

As for this "Australia" or "England", you must already be aware of my view that both are far too big and ought to be divided into smaller states, thus neither has any significance for me. An old person should be respected wherever they live. One day you too may be old!

Having said all that, I do agree that swearing an oath is a bad idea, any oath, in any place and in whatever century: that was declared both in the old testament and by Jesus, but then they also said that IF you fail to listen to this good advice and make an oath anyway, then you must live up to it.

Paul,

"Did you miss the bit about the Greens wanting to have a republic?"

They appear to be in favour of declaring a republic, what ever happened to the people voting to change the Constitution?

Dear Is Mise,

«They [the Greens] appear to be in favour of declaring a republic»

I wonder why?

Her Majesty the Queen is so gracious and gentle, She makes no demands, She lives in far-away England thus have no expectations from Australia, She could not harm a fly, She is just there to love us as we also love her, so what is missing? perhaps the Greens wish for a local-Australian head-of-state so that s/he will rule over us with a rod of iron?

Do you agree that swearing an oath to an old woman in England is archaic
Yuyutsu,
It's not to just an old woman, it's to a system which has worked until the Leftist reared their ugly heads.
It's like saying swearing an Oath to some useless Academics calling themselves Govt Ministers in a Republic.
In my view neither are desirable but I do prefer the former when I look at the alternative !

Dear Individual,

We cannot stop people from having and swearing an allegiance to all sorts of things, be it even their favourite sports team, but what has any of that to do with one's commencing their job in parliament?

Parliamentarians' job-description is not to serve their Queen, the monarchy, their political party, their country or any other country: their job is to REPRESENT their constituency - nothing more, nothing less.

Thus, if there is to be an oath at all (which most religions oppose), then let it be an oath to serve one's constituents faithfully.

If one's other allegiances hinder them from serving their constituents faithfully, then they should think twice before registering themselves as electoral candidates.

Yuyutsu,
The average voter is as greedy & corrupt as the people they vote in with the hope of finding an ally in authority ! Most aren't interested in the health of their community as is easily deduced from the many posts here alone.
I don't fully agree with the notion that those in Parliament are obliged to work for their community as such. I firmly am of the opinion that Parliamentarians' primary responsibility is to work towards a common good not just simply aid the greed mongers amongst us.
That's why I am so against Negative gearing for a start because it is exactly that, negative ! Negative to the community as a whole !

Dear Individual,

You are entitled to your views even if they are anti-democratic.

According to what you write, you believe that there exists some entity called "community" whose interests are superior to, and trump, the wishes of individual living people.

What I just wonder is, why you go here under the name "Individual"?

What I just wonder is, why you go here under the name "Individual"?
Yuyutsu,
I don't consider myself a member of the Sheeple , that's why I chose that name.
A well working community is made up of considerate Individuals not indifferent, selfish sheeple !
Or, can't you see that ?

Dear Individual,

I accept that you do not consider yourself as a member of the Sheeple, yet by accepting this myth of "community" you behave like one.

I am aware of both selfish and considerate people and all that is in between, but I am unable to tell you what a "well working community" consists of, just as I cannot tell you what a well-fed tooth-fairy had for breakfast.

Yuyutsu,
So, your religious circle is not a cohesive community then ? Hinduism & all that jazz ?

Yuyutsu, Indy is correct, if you are a member of an organised religion then you are most likely a member of a well oiled community. Rules to follow, practices to be obeyed, procedures and protocols to be adhered to. All these rules etc which you had no say in their formulation, and no power to change them without other community members agreement. The religion is most likely controlled by a power elite who call all the shots anyway.

What religion are you a member of?

Dear Individual and Paul,

Individual mentioned my "religious circle".

But is there really a circle?

Consider someone who on seeing three people in the street calls out: "Hey, here is a triangle!", or if there are six people, evenly spaced, some would say, "Look here is a hexagon" while others with a different worldview seeing the same might exclaim, "Look, a star of David!"...

Similarly, people look up at the night sky, group some bright stars and say: "Look, a lion", "Look, a bear", "Look, a cart", "Look, a bucket", "Look, a scorpion", etc. The referred stars could even be billions of light-years away from each other, they just happen to be at close 3-dimensional angles when viewed from planet earth, yet it does not stop people from imagining that they are related.

Such lazy conceptualisations are neither a reality nor a complete lie: they do exist in a way, if only in the viewer's mind.

It does happen ocassionaly that people create deliberate formations, especially on parades, perhaps when filming a movie, but not in everyday life. Similarly, there are those who deliberately form a commune where they share everything from food to partners and dirty underwear. They are quite few nowadays.

Back to my religious "circle", it is anything but "well-oiled" or cohesive: people with varying degrees of Hindu faith constantly come and go and follow quite different sets of rules, if any. Some are closer friends to others, some I may see once a week, others once a month or once a year, and most Hindus (over a billion) I never met and do not know at all! There are many sects, many temples, many centres and many teachers - of these people select what best suits them. Last month I discovered that a Hindu person who came to do some repairs in my house belonged to a sect which I thought had disappeared many centuries ago. The vast majority of Hindus put their families first and busily look after their interests, both worldly and spiritual.

[continued...]

[...continued]

There are indeed some orders of monks and nuns who live a communal life, although in Australia there are typically only 2-3 of them living together in a given city - they are the exception.

It is natural for people to cooperate and exchange goods, services and ideas: while people may have SIMILAR goals, this does not imply that they have COMMON goals, generally people look after themselves and after their own families. Yes people do help others without asking for anything in return, but they usually do so to improve their own karma.

That being the case even with people who have a religion in common, how more erroneous it is to label the whole population of a country as a "community". That idea is delusional, yet for some it could be wishful-thinking.

As for being controlled by some power elite who call the shots, we are not living in the middle ages when every aspect of life was controlled and where so-called "religions" were incorporated into corrupt regimes - except for some Muslim countries this is now consigned to history, European history.

Yuyutsu,
You're not doing yourself any favours trying match Mr Opinion in matters of indoctrination & how to lower standard of sense to below low.

Dear Individual,

You are wrong to believe that this way you can get away with your anti-democratic views. While there is no such thing as "community", even if there was, your views remain anti-democratic. Moreover, had there been a community, then it would more likely be constructed around the local people of a constituency rather than encompassing the inhabitants of this whole continent, who never even saw or spoken with most others.

«The average voter is as greedy & corrupt as the people they vote in with the hope of finding an ally in authority !»

Quite insulting to the voters, but even suppose that was the case, the implication is that ordinary people are not good enough and must be denied the option to elect their representative who may protect them from the oppression of those in central authority, who are of course so much better and never corrupt... Do you have a picture of Xi Jinping on your wall?

«Most aren't interested in the health of their community as is easily deduced from the many posts here alone.»

Why would anyone be interested in the health of a[n imaginary] body of people who never even asked them whether or not they wish to become members thereof?

«I don't fully agree with the notion that those in Parliament are obliged to work for their community as such.»

You mean that they are obliged to work instead for their own private interests - or for the interest of others that are outside their "community"?

«I firmly am of the opinion that Parliamentarians' primary responsibility is to work towards a common good not just simply aid the greed mongers amongst us.»

The good that is common to whom, if not the good of the constituents who voted them in? Perhaps the good of the Chinese people who are in much greater numbers? Perhaps the good of ants, spiders and cockroaches: greedy and corrupt mankind has been unfairly decimating them for far too long...

your views remain anti-democratic.
Yuyutsu,
I sincerely hope they are because what is nowadays called democratic is in actual fact hypocrisy
in full swing. You say there is no Community, I say there's no Democracy !
How can there be Democracy when money rules everything, even Faith ?
Isn't democracy supposed to mean the majority's policies are accepted ? Why then do minorities constantly de-rail & dispute the outcome of democratic elections ?
There are in fact two communities, the decent one & the one to whom democracy means not to accept a democratic outcome !

Dear Individual,

There are seeds of democracy in Australia, an inheritance from mother England.
They never bloomed into a real democracy (nor in England, due to the faulty electoral system) but this is still better than nothing.

I cannot fathom what you mean by "money rules everything", "even faith"? Perhaps you can explain...

One pillar of democracy is that voters are allowed to make errors and poor choices - and even those ought to be respected. So if people vote on the basis of the amount of money-left-in-their-pockets, then this too ought to be respected, in a democracy. Perhaps you disagree, but then you disagree with democracy itself.

«Isn't democracy supposed to mean the majority's policies are accepted ?»

Nobody is always in the majority - everyone is in the majority on certain issues/policies and in the minority on others. In a well-functioning democracy, people and their representatives negotiate to install the policies that are most dear to their hearts and crucially affect them personally the most, while allowing others to have the policies that are similarly dear to them. This is called "horse-trading" and should be most welcome in a true democracy.

«Why then do minorities constantly de-rail & dispute the outcome of democratic elections ?»

How can they de-rail? By force? I don't see it happening in Australia.
Dispute? Sure, one can always dispute, but it does not make any difference, unless you believe that there is wide-spread cheating within the Australian Electoral Commission.

So my position is that an elected representative ought to be loyal to their electorate and them alone, represent their views as accurately they can and as necessary, forge horse-trading deals with other representatives in order to obtain the laws and policies that are the most dear to their electorate. If an oath is to be given at all, then it must be to serve their electorate faithfully. If one is unable to do this then they should not offer their electoral candidacy ; and if they find out later on that they cannot serve their electorate faithfully, then they should resign.

I don't see it happening in Australia.
Yuyutsu,
You're a lost case along with Mr Opinion, I shall no longer reply to the silly pettifogging ! Over & out.

This has been an interesting thread, as it reveals that some posters consider the crime of perjury to be justified if politicians, in their camp or who support their agenda, are the guilty perjurers and liars concerned.

Let us hope that their attitude to perjury changes if they are ever on a jury.

Hi there Issy,

Perjury, now is that's like telling PORKIES, which you have been outed for no less than three times on the Forum already this year, and the year is not even two weeks old. At your present rate I can see you collecting at least 100 PORKY AWARDS in 2020. Go for it son!

Porky,

Avoiding the issue again, you support lying and perjury.

Issy I support you 100% when it comes to lying and perjury.

A serious question Issy,

When out in the bush, possibly with your best mate Tony Assi shooting gods fury little creatures, have you ever had occasion to light a fire? A simple yes or no will do, but try not to tell another porky, please!

Porky Paul,

Yes, we often light fires, safely and one has never gotten away and caused damage,

What's your point?