Section 44 change or not

[Crankyhawk]

With the recent high profile section 44 casualties the question should be asked is there appetite for a referendum (which is the only way to change)

Currently it states one cannot be a foriegn citizen or entitled to the rights of a citizen of another country to represent parliament.

I believe at the moment (canavans case pending) the high court has already stated
- genuine reasonable attempt to get rid of foreign citizenship is ok
- if no one discovers your dual or foreign citizen until after you sit the legislation you voted on still stands.

There have been senate committees that have recommended a referendum for change Power Raid correct me if wrong but it was to ensure you are australian citizen, remove references to foreign citizens in constitution and leave it to parliament to sort details by legislation.

Referendums are big and expensive, so i am curious to see if there is an appetite for change amongst the good folk at bigfooty srp (yes i know not necessarily representative of country)

 

[HairyO]

Just rescind your bloody foreign citizenships before running for Parliament.

Done.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I have cast for the no vote as i do not see anything wrong with the current approach.
It should be trivial for anyone who wants to represent this country at parliamentary level to divest themselves or make reasonable attempts to divest themselves of foriegn citizenship.

The rule is now well known and seems quite clear.

I feel that a foriegn citizen in our parliament creates perception of working against our interests . I am aware this happens even with australian citizens but it is a level of discrimination that i am comfortable with.

 

[pazza]

I guess I have an unpopular view here.

Where you are born is hardly the biggest issue in the world.

It's whether you are competent enough to do the job that you have been asked to do.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I guess I have an unpopular view here.

Where you are born is hardly the biggest issue in the world.

It's whether you are competent enough to do the job that you have been asked to do.

Well, its early so i dont know that it is unpopular yet. There certainly were others in the greens and other threads who were wanting change. I hope Power Raid comes and posts his arguments for change as i am most interested in whether there is appetite for change that could justify expense of a referendum (yes i know i am not in a position to do it, but it is an intellectual exercise)

Also if you are happy to change to allow dual citizens to be elected then i think you want to vote yes not no

 

[tandino]

Yes I think there should be a change to Section 44.

I don't think it achieves what it's meant to achieve, it doesn't stop people having split loyalties and is not in keeping with the Australia of today.

The situation at the moment is a bit of a mess, we can't have full confidence that every member of parliament complies with s.44 and that needs to be resolved. However, the witch-hunt unleashed on Julia Banks because of her Greek heritage left a bad taste in my mouth.

There needs to be a calm and considered process, an investigation into every single MP and Senator to make sure there are no issues in this area, get the people out who shouldn't be in there and let's get on with life.

Going forward, I think the most important thing is candidates are Australian citizens. Full disclose of any other citizenship you might have, other relevant personal and professional memberships etc (unions/industry groups/lobby groups/IPA etc) and leave it for the voters to decide.

 

[Gough]

Yes I think there should be a change to Section 44.

I don't think it achieves what it's meant to achieve, it doesn't stop people having split loyalties and is not in keeping with the Australia of today.

The situation at the moment is a bit of a mess, we can't have full confidence that every member of parliament complies with s.44 and that needs to be resolved. However, the witch-hunt unleashed on Julia Banks because of her Greek heritage left a bad taste in my mouth.

There needs to be a calm and considered process, an investigation into every single MP and Senator to make sure there are no issues in this area, get the people out who shouldn't be in there and let's get on with life.

Going forward, I think the most important thing is candidates are Australian citizens. Full disclose of any other citizenship you might have, other relevant personal and professional memberships etc (unions/industry groups/lobby groups/IPA etc) and leave it for the voters to decide.

Witch hunt? It's a one seat majority, normal rules don't apply. Tony Abbott was lauded as a great opposition leader for his mastery of exactly this sort of thing.

 

[tandino]

Witch hunt? It's a one seat majority, normal rules don't apply. Tony Abbott was lauded as a great opposition leader for his mastery of exactly this sort of thing.

For almost all situations, no problem. They should go hard. If you get found out, whether it's on something like this or on expenses or on Bronwyn's choppers or Ley's Gold Coast apartment, you have to cop the derision that's coming your way.

But signaling out people based on their ethnicity for special attention seems a bit awkward for me. There must be dozens and dozens of people in Parliament that have foreign born parents, including some in leadership positions in all parties. There's more Canavans out there, and they should be investigated and sent on their way. But it should be a calm and considered process, not a social media mob with torches.

 

[Hank Scorpion]

Yes. Although if we're to hold a referendum on it, bundle with other pressing constitutional issues to reduce the cost of changing it.

It doesn't actively do anything to command the allegiance of MPs and senators. Dastyari has done everything possible to renounce his Iranian citizenship, yet has been in the pockets of Chinese businessmen on previous occasions.

Not to mention S44 as it is is difficult to enforce. If it were simply a matter of citizenship derived through birth ala Waters & Ludlam it would be fairly easy. However potentially having to vet for a citizenship chain descending from Italian/German/etc. grandparents & great-grandparents, is an unnecessary, nitpicking restriction on who may run for office.

And there's also the supposed issue as to whether employed teachers/nurses/etc. can run for office, which seems to be a meaningless restriction, although not tested in the courts AFAIK.

Change it such that S44 only requires Australian citizenship & enshrine some kind of oath/affirmation. It has about the same effect on elected members' allegiance, whilst removing the playing field for future political & legal games.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Going forward, I think the most important thing is candidates are Australian citizens. Full disclose of any other citizenship you might have, other relevant personal and professional memberships etc (unions/industry groups/lobby groups/IPA etc) and leave it for the voters to decide.

Australian citizenship should be enough to be in Parliament. Other citizenships should be declared - and non-declaration should lead to disqualification from office. Declarations of the other personal and professional memberships might be too hard to enshrine in the constitution.

The costs of referendums for constitutional change has been raised. Different constitutional questions could be bundled into one voting day to save costs. For example, we currently have potential referendums on indigenous recognition and section 44, plus a possible plebiscite on same sex marriage.

 

[tandino]

. Declarations of the other personal and professional memberships might be too hard to enshrine in the constitution.

I think so as well, but it would be good to know.

 

[GreyCrow]

There needs to be a calm and considered process, an investigation into every single MP and Senator to make sure there are no issues in this area, get the people out who shouldn't be in there and let's get on with life..

I agree with the sentiment but ffs it took the Liberal Selection Committee 8 hours to get in touch with the Greek Embassy. Why didnt this happen on pre-selection?

That is what annoys me

 

[Power Raid]

fix the constitution or bin the various anti-discrimination acts

 

[tandino]

And there's also the supposed issue as to whether employed teachers/nurses/etc. can run for office, which seems to be a meaningless restriction, although not tested in the courts AFAIK..

Sykes v Cleary made that one pretty clear.

Phil Cleary (the ex VFA footballer) was on long term unpaid leave from the state education department, won his seat as an Independent as was later found to be ineligible. He won it again at the subsequent election.

 

[Crankyhawk]

fix the constitution or bin the various anti-discrimination acts

I think legislation is unable to override constitution.

 

[Power Raid]

I think legislation is unable to override constitution.

yep

for interest, we actually have a number of areas in the constitution that provide power to government to actively discriminate. this isn't necessarily translate to a bad thing but it did provide the power to round up germans and japanese during the war and roll out the revised social security to aborigines. Good or bad policy, I'd prefer chacks and balances like applying to the high court before executing that power.

in regards to s44, I see full disclosure and record of citizenships, affiliations and conflicts of interests. That way the electorate is informed when voting and step aside from voting where appropriate. This should be done for all people in power such as unions, big corporations, religion and politics and recorded in a public interest register.

 

[Northalives]

With all due respect to everyone, some of you are missing the point. The reason for section 44 is that it protects the Parliament from disrepute, it preserves it's integrity.

Of course there are people who, once they are elected to Parliament, may seem to be more interested in the interests of other nations more than ours or look like they are trying to cosy up to other countries but that is part of the thrust and parry of the political process.

Section 44 is to protect members of the Australian Parliament from accusations of biased towards another county because of their allegiance to that particular country and the use of evidence which states unequivocally, that they still have an allegiance to that particular country through them being a citizen of that country. If this were to occur, then this becomes a crisis and fractures the foundations of our political system, it undermines the integrity of our Parliament.

It is astonishing that we would even consider watering down such a simple and basic aspect of our rock solid system of government because people are either ignorant, lazy or too conceited to abide by the most unambiguous requirement there is to stand for parliament namely, renounce any and all other allegiances/citizenships to foreign countries.

We must not take what we have for granted and certainly not sit idly by and allow what underpins our system of government to be diluted in any way.

 

[Rob]

Probably warrants change, but would never get up in a referendum.

 

[Crankyhawk]

yep

for interest, we actually have a number of areas in the constitution that provide power to government to actively discriminate. this isn't necessarily translate to a bad thing but it did provide the power to round up germans and japanese during the war and roll out the revised social security to aborigines. Good or bad policy, I'd prefer chacks and balances like applying to the high court before executing that power.

in regards to s44, I see full disclosure and record of citizenships, affiliations and conflicts of interests. That way the electorate is informed when voting and step aside from voting where appropriate. This should be done for all people in power such as unions, big corporations, religion and politics and recorded in a public interest register.

As you mentioned religion would you also have sporting affiliations/ teams supported?

 

[Power Raid]

With all due respect to everyone, some of you are missing the point. The reason for section 44 is that it protects the Parliament from disrepute, it preserves it's integrity.

Of course there are people who, once they are elected to Parliament, may seem to be more interested in the interests of other nations more than ours or look like they are trying to cosy up to other countries but that is part of the thrust and parry of the political process.

Section 44 is to protect members of the Australian Parliament from accusations of biased towards another county because of their allegiance to that particular country and the use of evidence which states unequivocally, that they still have an allegiance to that particular country through them being a citizen of that country. If this were to occur, then this becomes a crisis and fractures the foundations of our political system, it undermines the integrity of our Parliament.

It is astonishing that we would even consider watering down such a simple and basic aspect of our rock solid system of government because people are either ignorant, lazy or too conceited to abide by the most unambiguous requirement there is to stand for parliament namely, renounce any and all other allegiances/citizenships to foreign countries.

We must not take what we have for granted and certainly not sit idly by and allow what underpins our system of government to be diluted in any way.

Really? If you put this position to the real life test it simply doesn't stack up.

Run through the variables of
- never a dual citizen but just an Aussie wishing to commit treason or act in another nations interests
- never a dual citizen but has other allegiances
- renounces dual citizenship but this was just part of the process and act in full knowledge they intend to commit treason
- the electorate voted for the individual in full knowledge of an allegiance
- just a dual citizen or a straight out foreigner best qualified for the job

There are better ways to measure and identify allegiances than citizenship.


Then put citizenship in perspective. It means nothing and means even less in time as nationalism continues to be diluted. Nationalism is all but dead!

 

[Gough]

Nationalism is dead, did you miss Brexit, and Trump?

 

[Crankyhawk]

I think that while nationalism may be outdated there's many who can understand it better than globalisation. A lot would not give a care for the plight of Asian sweatshop labor, or refugees, or foreign aid, just see it as wasted money. While aid for local farmers or fire victims is easier to understand

Tldr people probably are a bit nationalist

 

[Power Raid]

I think that while nationalism may be outdated there's many who can understand it better than globalisation. A lot would not give a care for the plight of Asian sweatshop labor, or refugees, or foreign aid, just see it as wasted money. While aid for local farmers or fire victims is easier to understand

Tldr people probably are a bit nationalist

yep and that's a challenge. A simple close-to-home hard hitting three word slogan works vs a an excellent policy that takes decades to see the benefits. I dare say, BF attests to that.

Thankfully education, travel and increased incomes reduces the value of nationalism and slogans. It also adds value to issues not-close-to-home but greatly impact our way of life due to an ever connected world. People who have travelled, very quickly appreciate 99% of world poverty is CAUSED by their own governments keeping them in poverty. Given this is the case, it does beg the question whether nations like India, Philippines and the US would all be better served with an all foreign represented government rather than feudal systems (literal and corporatised models).

Once people appreciate this very real fact, it does raise the question of why our nation is any different. Adding foreigners, grows the talent pool available for our government and better still adds people not corrupted by our established power broking factions.

 

[AM]

I guess I have an unpopular view here.

Where you are born is hardly the biggest issue in the world.

It's whether you are competent enough to do the job that you have been asked to do.

Are they mutually exclusive?

 

[Power Raid]

you can't have dual citizenship, including british but............


COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SCHEDULE
OATH

I, A.B. , do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, 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 Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.

(NOTE: The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time. )