-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
If they are ineligible before how can they run again? Is it because they have renounced their dual citizenship now?Azza said:
dont like Joyce, tho he is amusing at times. and yes he will probably return and the only effect of his incompetence will be a couple of weeks where the gov may not be able to pass bills and a huge expense to tax payers.
but am very glad Roberts is gone. the guy is a fool. he was obviously a fool before this blew up, but his attempts at defenses since have been laughable. i know people who are dumb enough to vote for Pauline Hanson wont care but this he is symbolic of what one-nation voters are voting for.
but am very glad Roberts is gone. the guy is a fool. he was obviously a fool before this blew up, but his attempts at defenses since have been laughable. i know people who are dumb enough to vote for Pauline Hanson wont care but this he is symbolic of what one-nation voters are voting for.
MD Jazz said:
You expect his replacement to be any better? It's hard to believe every single ON supporter is as dumb and foolish as Roberts but there candidates and not just the elected ones all seem similarly challenged. They just can't seem to field anyone of average intelligence or education.
IanG said:
This is not a defence of Joyce. But in a country of immigrants in the era of globalisation why do parliamentarians have to renounce their birth citizenship? Why can't they be duel citizens?
As tigersnake said, it's in the constitution. I guess in the time when it was written, there was a genuine fear that somebody who was a dual citizen may still have some allegiance to another nation and act as a spy or traitor for that nation. Nowadays, it seems absurd, but it would require a referendum to change it.KnightersRevenge said:
tigersnake said:
I'm more interested in whether people think it is right or wrong than the the constitutional exclusion.
KnightersRevenge said:
sorry I thought you were just referring to why its happening.
For me its simple. The reason its there is as a way to ensure loyalty, eradicate the potential for double agents. I don’t see a problem. Another reason for me is just privilege, there are hundreds of millions of people in the world who barely have any human rights at all, in any country, so to have codified rights in more than one seems a bit greedy, double-dipping. I don’t have a problem with non-politicians doing it, but for politicians it doesn’t really wash with me. Also, with international relations being what they are, some countries will be seen as OK, some won’t be. Where do you draw the line? A dual Aus/ NZ citizen is OK but an Aus/ UAE is not OK for example. It’s a minefield. Keep it simple, all in, or not in.
tigersnake said:
I find it hard to argue as I have dual citizenship. Irish/Aussie. I did it purely for ease of travel, who'd give up the easy access to EU countries? Especially living over here in Europe. Spanish holidays, Prague for the weekend. Cheap flights to Berlin, fancy a beer and a currywurst? But I don't think any of that truly applies to pollies. The transient nature of office for some could be a sticking point perhaps. What if you have to renounce your citizenship and then get booted out after one term? You don't have all the travel benefits of long term office (I dont think?) and now you have to go through red tape, you may even be permanently disallowed, I think Seppos refuse to reinstate a renounced citizenship.
I also do have a romantic/emotional connection to Ireland and her history that I would find hard to let go of. But again if I was patriotic/motivated enough to want to enter the political fray then surely that would Trump all else, membership of the parliament should require thay bit more than the average citizen shouldn't it?
Being a dual citizen does not preclude one from serving in the Australian Army, RAN and RAAF. The same for working in the Commonwealth Public Service Agencies. Not sure on ASIO and AFP, but certainly sensitive agencies such as Dept of Foreign Affairs & Trade, Australian Electoral Commission and Australian Border Force have no such rule precluding dual citizens. I would have thought these areas would be at as high, if not higher risk for potential double agents, than politicians themselves. Particularly at the senior levels of these organisations.tigersnake said:
KnightersRevenge said:
I'm about 5 generations removed from eligibility to dual citizenship. But have always looked on with intense envy, at those who won a lottery of birth of sorts and have dual citizenship. I'd give my left nut to have the same opportunities it afforded some of my peers. In actual fact, had I been born with such rights, I'm 80% sure I'd have probably settled in the UK long term, at least for some of my life.
If I was born with these citizenship rights, hell would freeze over before I gave it up. If I had to choose between right to dual Aust-UK nationality and running for Parliament, I'd choose the dual nationality every single day of the week.
KnightersRevenge said:
I trust our forefathers to have done a better job at writing the rule book than people these days are. They had reasons for writing the constitution as it is. Reasons wev'e forgotten but if we ignore, we'll be rudely reminded of at some stage. You might consider those reasons archaic, but they're valid all the same and they may become relevant once again. And it does no harm in the meantime. Indeed, I see it as a test of our politician's obedience and willingness to accept the rules. After all, if our 'honorable', esteemed leaders don't see any requirement to obey the rules, then I don't see any reason why anyone else should either.
Example, our forefathers had the insight to place gaps in railway lines to allow for expansion on hot days. Fast forward a few decades and some idiot decides it's too noisy and has the gaps welded up. The next hot day taught them why the gaps were there in the first place. And during a drought mind you, we then had fresh drinking water being poured onto the tracks to stop them buckling.
Sorry but people today have forgotten the basics and can't be trusted to perform even the most basic task in a competent manner. Our road network is a world class demonstration of the idiocy of VicRoads. So many basic things done so poorly that I sometimes think it's deliberate as it's hard to believe that anyone could really be that stupid.
Don't get me started on our politicians. Trust them to mess around with the constitution? Far better just to sack them and get people for whom changing the constitution isn't required.
KnightersRevenge said:
I think it's right to have it in the constitution. The only way to guarantee that the rights of Australia are the sole focus of our policy makers is to ensure they don't hold citizenship of another country. We allow for people born overseas to become Australian citizens and lead our nation, which other including the USA do not, but I don't think it's too much to ask that they are citizens of our country alone.