The Parliament is a cesspool of foreigners

Who needs pay-TV when we have “Canberra”.

For what it’s worth I think Malcolm Roberts is gone.

Senator Roberts’ fate hinges on whether he was ever a British citizen, which he is refusing to disclose, and whether he took all reasonable steps to renounce the citizenship before he was elected.

Senator Roberts, born in India in 1955 to a Welsh father and an Australian mother, told Sky News on Thursday night he wrote to the British High Commission on May 1 last year asking if he was a British citizen. 

Five weeks later, he hadn’t received a response, so wrote again on June 6 – three days before nominations closed – saying that if he had British citizenship, he fully renounced it.

“I’ve taken all steps that I reasonably believe necessary,” Senator Roberts said.

After he was elected on July 2, Senator Roberts said he and his wife kept badgering the High Commission and it was not until December 5 he received a formal registration of his renunciation.

Yes – you read that right: He waited five weeks before badgering the British High Commission. Unless that UK renunciation is backdated to before June 6 I can’t see how he can remain in the Parliament.  Like Ludlum and Waters a open and shut case.

Julia Banks and Matt Canavan are somewhat different – they are Australian born, but may still fall foul of s44 as it is currently understood.

Clearly there are absurdities to s44 as it is currently understood and the High Court should clear it up asap.

In the meantime some interesting reading on the situation from Helen Dale, James Allan, Arthur Chrenkoff, and John Quiggin.

This entry was posted in Federal Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

123 Responses to The Parliament is a cesspool of foreigners

  1. Robber Baron

    Albanese, Pliberseik, Shorten, Wong…I’m sure there are more under suspicion.

    Chuck them all out…all of them.

  2. Marcus

    Well, that would be blow for One Nation. Apart from Pauline Hanson, he’s got to be the best asset they’ve got.

  3. Wasn’t Julia Gillard born in Wales? Would be interesting to see whether she had renounced British citizenship.

  4. pete m

    I think the law on this is an ASS, as far as the “entitled to” citizenship.

    EG

    Some tin pot country decides they need more adults for an army. It passes a law which says if your parent or grandparent was born or a citizen of their country, then you are automatically enrolled and considered a citizen too. Further, if you set foot in the country you will be forced to do 5 years military service.

    Your granddad was born there but came to Aust, where your father and you were born.

    Due to this law, you cannot now sit to become an aussie MP.

    Born here to aust birth citizens and never intend to visit let alone seek citizenship of tin pot country, but now you are excluded due to laws of a crazy country you have no control of.

    Fair?

    Regarding M Roberts, the date of renunciation should be from when you gave notice to the other country – again, what if they never bother to record it? You could forever be unable to renounce it.

    this whole thing is becoming a circus

  5. C.L.

    Clearly there are absurdities to s44 as it is currently understood and the High Court should clear it up asap.

    Depends what you mean exactly, Sinclair. It isn’t the High Court’s job to “clear up” things we have suddenly decided are “absurdities” – not if it means the justices invent an interpretation of section 44 that gets the Mandarin class out of its present pickle. The law is straightforward and beyond trite constructivist exegesis. If Canberra’s elites want this law to go away, they are required to ask the Australian people, pursuant to section 128.

  6. BrettW

    Now we really do look like a third world country.

    How many others who have retired with pensions could it also apply to ? We could save some serious money here.

    It is almost like a new sport for journalists.

  7. Siltstone

    Clearly there are absurdities to s44 as it is currently understood and the High Court should clear it up asap.

    No. If there are absurditie in s44 (which I doubt), then they should be “cleared up” by changing th Constitution via referendum, not by the High Court. No Government by judges. The meaning in s44 is quite clear, candidates just dont bother to read it.

  8. .

    Adam,

    I think Gillard may have been the same as my dad – his father and mother got Australian citizenship in the 1950s and so all of their British (and Australian) born children did too, AFAIK it repudiated their British citizenship, even before 1986.

  9. CameronC

    I personally do not think you should be able to be in Parliament unless both you parents and all of your Grand Parents were born in Australia.

  10. Haidee

    I wish I could read what James Allan has to say about this.

  11. P

    Disqualification of a Coalition MP in the lower house, where the government holds a one-seat majority, could undermine its hold on power.
    The Australian, Rosie Lewis, John Ferguson, 3:10PM July 28, 2017.

    You can access this above article by typing in Rosie Lewis, John Ferguson in the Search box in Google News.

  12. .

    CameronC
    #2453214, posted on July 28, 2017 at 4:29 pm
    I personally do not think you should be able to be in Parliament unless both you parents and all of your Grand Parents were born in Australia.

    All four grandparents, let alone both parents? The US isn’t even this strict for who can run for President. This is comparable because any MP can be the PM – even Senators (ala Gorton, albeit briefly).

  13. Tekweni

    You are not entitled to Australian citizenship if your grandfather was born here. Tried that before I migrated here. My father was born in England, I was born in South Africa and I have SA/UK/NZ and Oz citizenship. Applied for UK when I turned 18 in SA as I could see it was going down the drain. Put all the citizenships in my Oz citizenship application and no problem. Fortunately I am not standing for public office.

  14. Pickles

    Wake me up when they have all been removed, their assets seized, their children sold into slavery and they themselves shot as the spies they undoubtedly are. S 44 was drafted by our wise forefathers to enable us to root out treacherous foreign scum. They can come here if they wish, but buggered if they should be allowed to run the place. Hopefully the HCA will wield S 44 like an axe on these fifth columnists.

  15. P

    Haidee #2453215, posted on July 28, 2017 at 4:30 pm

    I wish I could read what James Allan has to say about this.

    Go to Google News Australia
    https://news.google.com/news/?edchanged=1&ned=au&hl=en-AU
    Type in the Search Box:
    James Allan
    Press enter

    hth

  16. .

    So what happens?

    We get rid of say 14 MHRs and 7 Senators, we have a House election now; do we still have a House election and Senate half election in 2019? The new Senators just get appointed by list or the State executives?

    Malcolm can’t engineer a DD right now, IIRC.

  17. Baldrick

    For what it’s worth I think Malcolm Roberts is gone.

    For what it’s worth I don’t think he is. He renounced his British citizenship before nominations closed.
    It’s hardly his fault if the High Commission sat on it until after the election and then only confirming it in December, 5 months later.

  18. Sinclair Davidson

    CL – my view is that the High Court caused this problem with their rulings in the 1990s. The HC needs to uninvent their previous inventions. As to a referendum I’ll probably vote “No” to whatever they want or ask for.

  19. Malcolm

    It would be an absolute outrage if the Government and Opposition brought forward a referendum to change section 44. Labor has been arguing that a plebiscite is too expensive on same sex marriage but now wants to spend a fortune on a referendum to save MPs and Senators a little trouble.

    These are the same motherfkrs who pass complex tax legislation and want us to be screwed if we don’t understand every little clause.

    And yet it is too complex apparently to work out if you have foreign citizenship. BULLSHIT. If you’re mother has Italian blood – check. If you’re father is Greek – check. If you are 100% Indigenous don’t worry. If you are born in another country – check. Surely it is not unreasonable for the Australian people to expect their representatives to have Australian citizenship only?

    It’s not very complicated really. Countries are either jus sanguinis (right of blood) or jus soli (born in the territory). If you’re born in the territory of the US you are a US citizen irrespective of the citizenship of your parents – it applies jus soli. If you have an Italian parent you are Italian – it applies jus sanguinis. Now of course there are some minor complications such as how many generations ago a citizenship was obtained and whether a parent renounced citizenship. But it is NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.

    These are the people elected to represent us – can’t they do a simple check??

    And if you have foreign citizenship – renounce it. The High Court has set out the procedure.

    If there is a referendum I will be voting NO.

  20. A Lurker

    For what it’s worth I don’t think he is. He renounced his British citizenship before nominations closed.
    It’s hardly his fault if the High Commission sat on it until after the election and then only confirming it in December, 5 months later.

    I agree, he’s been open and transparent about having done the paperwork, unlike some of the others on the ‘furriner’ list.

  21. Stimpson J. Cat

    Is there a law in Australia that you cannot practice Keynesian Economics unless you are gay?
    Asking for a friend.
    Anyone?

  22. IDefender of the faith

    The law is plain. The nomination form asks whether the nominee has dual citizenship. People should know what citizenship they have and they have ample opportunity to set it right before nominating. Many in the Parliament are immigrants and have had dual citizenship. Any who did not should simply go. Roberts clearly is one. Banks is probably ok since Greeks have to apply to take patrial rights and she says she did not. Cana van did apply (or at least his mum did) for Italian citizenship. So he seems to be shickered.

  23. The Pugilist

    If you are 100% Indigenous don’t worry.

    For all of those arguing for a treaty, you should be careful what you wish for…

  24. .

    People should know what citizenship they have

    There’s your problem.

  25. Billie

    Referendum?

    I’ll vote NO

    The current mob displease me, a pox on their houses

    If god is just, Dougie “wot about the wuckers!” will be out as well

    I see no reason to change the constitution just for the convenience of a few, tell me they’re dreaming

  26. Haidee

    “Isn’t it bizarre to see the elected legislators in your country disqualified because they happen to hold a second passport?” – James Allan

    He might as well have included a “just” –
    “because they just happen to hold a second passport”

    The first time I’ve been disappointed reading James Allan.
    No, it isn’t “bizarre” at all

  27. I think Gillard may have been the same as my dad – his father and mother got Australian citizenship in the 1950s and so all of their British (and Australian) born children did too, AFAIK it repudiated their British citizenship, even before 1986.

    Dot,

    My father was born in Scotland in 1942, my grandfather was in the air force based over there and married a local lass. I got my British passport some years ago and my brother got his recently. I had previously done some research on this issue because some people wanted me to go into politics and we discovered that I would have had to specifically renounce my potential British citizenship. This was before I applied for my British passport.

    It also beggars the question that if I could do that small amount of research, why then have our betters in parliament not done the same? If you overlook such basic matters as this, why should you be entrusted with shaping and framing the future laws of this nation?

  28. stackja

    Section 44 of the Constitution
    The Australian Electoral Commission thus encourages anyone potentially affected to seek their own legal advice. The Commission outlines the relevant issues in its Electoral Backgrounder No. 13, on Constitutional Disqualifications.

    Recent candidate disqualifications under s. 44
    33. The complex legal language in s. 44 of the Constitution, and the use of some terms and concepts that no longer have any standard currency, may make it difficult for intending candidates and their advisers to decide whether they are vulnerable to disqualification.

    HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
    GLEESON CJ, GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ
    Matter No S179/1998
    HENRY (NAI LEUNG) SUE PETITIONER
    AND
    HEATHER HILL & ANOR RESPONDENTS

    There is no doubt that the framers of the Australian Constitution were aware of the distinction. In the debate at the Adelaide Convention in 1897 there was much discussion of the difference between what were described as “disputed returns” and “qualification of a member”[337]. In response to concerns expressed at the Convention that this distinction would be eroded, Mr Barton explained that the provision in the Constitution Bill of the phrase “until The Parliament otherwise provides” would leave it to “the Parliament of the Commonwealth to determine whether the Houses, after they are called together, shall determine this question, or whether the Judges should do it. It is a matter for the Federal Parliament to deal with. It increases the freedom of action of the Parliament of the Federation, and for that reason it is also desirable to leave it in the hands of the Parliament … if the Parliament will not undertake the matter itself, it will delegate it to the High Court”[338]. Mr Wise observed that there were “two questions involved here, which ought to be kept distinct. There is the qualification of a member or the question as to vacancies on the one side, and the question of a disputed return, which is a matter of altogether a different character. I apprehend that only questions of disputed returns should be dealt with by the Supreme Court …”[339]. Other participants expressed like views.

    Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, (Adelaide), 15 April 1897 at 681.

  29. .

    and we discovered that I would have had to specifically renounce my potential British citizenship

    I don’t think you have to renounce something that doesn’t exist, only a right to exercise a claim to a right. I can get a UK passport, but it doesn’t give me British citizenship.

    Did your father become naturalised? My father did by virtue of his parents doing so.

    I think your situation is actually more complicated.

  30. stackja

    Australian referendum, 1967

    I voted yes to whatever regarding Aborigines, and no to the nexus. I regret voting yes as too much money has been wasted since. Why bother changing any more?

  31. .

    The Australian constitution is very flawed. Time to start over. Piecemeal changes will probably make it worse.

  32. MACK

    Great opportunity for the PM to show some leadership and sort this mess out – if he actually had any such skills. John Howard addressed the guns issue, Tony Abbott stopped the boats, Maggie Thatcher took on the Argentinians etc etc. That’s how real leaders act.

  33. rickw

    Don’t care about Australia, Don’t care about Australia’s Laws, sack the whole fucking lot, and while we’re at it, end the pension of any previous incumbents that also breached the provision.

  34. Did your father become naturalised? My father did by virtue of his parents doing so.

    His father was Australian, in the RAAF. I didn’t make that clear. I think he was naturalised but I cannot be sure. It is very damn confusing.

  35. Snoopy

    .
    #2453279, posted on July 28, 2017 at 5:27 pm
    The Australian constitution is very flawed. Time to start over. Piecemeal changes will probably make it worse.

    We need to set a due date. COB Thursday?

  36. .

    You can write it up Snoop.

    Federation was a mistake. That is the main issue and what drives the ongoing bad jurisprudence. Most of the damage is done by abuse of the corporations and external affairs powers, not to mention the nationhood power.

    Go from there and you’ll succeed. Godspeed.

  37. serene tiger

    I want Malcolm Roberts to stay (he is a climate change skeptic)
    The rest can go

  38. Caveman

    Easy solution to all this tell them you are part Indiginious . They wont question this unless they are racisit bigots and racisit.

  39. Squirrel

    “Who needs pay-TV when we have “Canberra”.” – or, indeed, free-to-air – being kicked out of the house by the High Court is so much more dramatic than being kicked out by a bunch of bogans on the Tribal Council, and the prospect of the Pauline and Judy double act is pure gold.

  40. Chris M

    Roberts was aware of the issue and assuming he can prove the dates did the right thing prior to the election.

  41. Siltstone

    Federation was a mistake.

    yep, parts of the continentt would be lot better off if there were multiple countries not multiple State, and parts would be worse off – at least there be more competition and innovation than there is now

  42. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    . As to a referendum I’ll probably vote “No” to whatever they want or ask for.

    We should always vote NO on referenda unless they introduce one requiring a balanced budget amendment, one MP a day to be shot and the excise on all vices to be removed.

  43. DaveR

    So s44 seems to be out of step with modern Australia, and is in need of reform.

    Good. Now that’s been said, lets deal with the law as it currently stands.

    Anybody who has breached the law, knowingly or not, has to go. Its that simple.

  44. Atoms for Peace

    FFS. Expecting a reply out of the Brits within 5 weeks?
    Gimme break!

  45. Oh come on

    There aren’t many MPs who I’d regret seeing the back of. Leyonhjelm cops a lot of flak here but he’s a good sort as far as I’m concerned. It’d be a pity to lose him. The rest deserve a jolly good shove; don’t care how it’s done.

  46. Leo G

    I agree with Professor Davidson’s comment “there are absurdities to s44 as it is currently understood”. The section was intended to apply in an era when “foreign power” had a substantially different meaning- before Australia’s international status changed. Like much of the Constitution, its legal interpretation has “progressed” beyond the point where it can be rationally reconciled with the text.
    The High Court rulings therefor take precedence over the text.
    I pointed out in an earlier thread that the decision in Sykes v Cleary gave effect to parliamentary recommendations that it should be sufficient for a candidate to take ‘ every step reasonably open’ to divest the foreign nationality.
    From the Decision:

    HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA | Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ
    SYKES v. CLEARY and OTHERS (1992) 176 CLR 77 25 November 1992
    53. What amounts to the taking of reasonable steps to renounce foreign nationality must depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. What is reasonable will turn on the situation of the individual, the requirements of the foreign law and the extent of the connection between the individual and the foreign State of which he or she is alleged to be a subject or citizen. And it is relevant to bear in mind that a person who has participated in an Australian naturalization ceremony in which he or she has expressly renounced his or her foreign allegiance may well believe that, by becoming an Australian citizen, he or she has effectively renounced any foreign nationality.

    I don’t believe Senator Roberts’ fate hinges on whether he was ever a British citizen, as British authorities have reported that he was registered as a citizen but has now been deregistered as a result of his renunciation. It seems to me that his fate rests on whether he did take those steps to renounce the citizenship before he was elected as he claims.

  47. Oh come on

    The problem with tearing up the current constitution, dot, is that you can be absolutely certain any replacement would be infinitely worse. We’d probably end up with an AU – an additional layer of government superior to the federal government that will ‘address’ the problems between the ‘squabbling states’ and Canberra. Oh, and the Indigenous representation issue.

  48. herodotus

    The Queen is still Queen of Australia, so as far as I am concerned any British subject who’s also an Australian citizen is ok. I know I may be a lonely proponent of this!
    My faith in the virtue of Britishness was shaken, however, when that little upstart Harold Wilson wanted to take them into the European Economic Community. Worse things happened later.

  49. Oh come on

    The AU’s capital will be in Birnie, Tas. It will grow to become the largest city in Australia as useless bureaucrats flock there, tempted by the seven figure salaries on offer for diversity officers, First Australian interpreters and so on.

  50. Pedro the Ignorant

    The Queen is still Queen of Australia, so as far as I am concerned any British subject who’s also an Australian citizen is ok.

    from herodotus.

    have a look at all these British subjects.

  51. Arnost

    Has anyone actually considered the “allegiance” bit? I mean – British; New Zealander; Canadian even… and Australian… all swear allegiance to the same monarch. I would bet that for half of the history of the parliament there were some “technically” dual citizens there that did not formally go through the hoops of getting written confirmation from HM public service. Born in England, migrated here renounced citizenship here – done deal.

    And I also bet it was not an issue whether some pen pusher in the old dart confirmed it in writing… whatever happened to “my oath is my bond”.

  52. Oh come on

    I mean – British; New Zealander; Canadian even… and Australian… all swear allegiance to the same monarch.

    No, they don’t. Australian MPs swear allegiance to the Queen of Australia. British MPs swear allegiance to the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. NZ MPs swear allegiance to the Queen of NZ. Canadian MPs swear allegiance to the Queen of Canada. Same person, different monarch.

  53. Mr Black

    I’m rather pleased that the law is being taken seriously and those who are not Australian are not permitted to represent Australians. Changing a name on their paperwork doesn’t make them Australian any more than a fake accent would.

  54. Tel

    The Australian constitution is very flawed. Time to start over. Piecemeal changes will probably make it worse.

    Well then everyone in Canberra would be looking for alternative employment, and I won’t be needing these BAS statements ever again.

    Sounds like a good idea… let’s do it.

  55. .

    all swear allegiance to the same monarch

    No they don’t. The Queen of Canada is not the Queen of Australia.

    . Born in England, migrated here renounced citizenship here – done deal.

    Born there and naturalised here – no need to renounce. I am pretty sure of this but I will check.

  56. Neil

    I suspect this citizenship thing may be a new thing. From 1901-1948 we were British subjects. You could not become an Australian citizen until 1948

  57. Combine Dave

    CameronC
    #2453214, posted on July 28, 2017 at 4:29 pm
    I personally do not think you should be able to be in Parliament unless both you parents and all of your Grand Parents were born in Australia.

    Harsh but fair.

  58. .

    That’s right Neil. Britain wasn’t a foreign power until 1999, which was backdated to 1986.

  59. Arnost

    All this legal kerfufle. The natralisation oath is silent as to renunciation of foreign citizens by… but isn’t the fact that you pledge “my loyalty” to Australia yadda yadda sufficient? It’s not part, some or in anyway conditional… wouldn’t that mean total loyalty to the exclusion of all else?

  60. Boambee John

    Apply s44 also to the electoral roll.

    Dual citizens should not be eligible to vote.

  61. .

    Good point Arnost.

    AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT 2007 – SCHEDULE 1

    Pledge of commitment as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia
    Note: See section 27.

    1 Form of pledge no. 1

    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.

    2 Form of pledge no. 2

    From this time forward, 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.

    I reckon you’re right. I don’t care what an Italian git reckons about people becoming Italian citizens if they like it or not.

  62. Arnost

    From a personal experience… was naturalised when I was I my early teens. My parents DEFINITELY renounced citizenship (on my behalf). However I still received my induction into the army letter and a jail sentence in absentia when I did not front. Does this mean that I would be ineligible under section 44?

  63. .

    Seek qualified legal advice!

  64. Jimf

    Only in Aus could pollies on $200k base ++ be stupid and complacent enough to not do their due diligence on a basic filtering test. Talk about the cream of the crap.

  65. True Aussie

    Clearly there are absurdities to s44 as it is currently understood and the High Court should clear it up asap.

    There are no absurdities, only idiots too stupid to check their citizenship status.

    Fair

    Fairness has nothing to do with it. Its about what is best for Australia. The risk of potential damage done by electing someone with foreign sympathies far outweighs the unfairness of it to any individual.

  66. Arnost

    The risk of potential damage done by electing someone with foreign sympathies far outweighs the unfairness of it to any individual.

    OK… but haven’t we got a stack of self confessed globalist UN suckups in parliament now? It is without a doubt their allegiance lies not with Australia but with the Eco-Greenie anti-west Gaia worshippers?

  67. .

    OK… but haven’t we got a stack of self confessed globalist UN suckups in parliament now? It is without a doubt their allegiance lies not with Australia but with the Eco-Greenie anti-west Gaia worshippers?

    Bang on.

    I don’t have four Australian born grandparents or some other bollocks, but I do want to get out of the UN, indeed, abolish the UN.

  68. True Aussie

    OK… but haven’t we got a stack of self confessed globalist UN suckups in parliament now? It is without a doubt their allegiance lies not with Australia but with the Eco-Greenie anti-west Gaia worshippers?

    So? That is not an argument for loosening our standards but tightening them. Banning anyone without four grandparents born and raised in Australia is only the beginning of restrictions we need to put in place.

  69. Rabz

    The parliament is a cesspool of foreigners …

    … and whores and quislings.

    Shut it down.

    Fire them all.

    Mound of skulls.

    Salt the earth.

  70. .

    Banning anyone without four grandparents born and raised in Australia is only the beginning of restrictions we need to put in place.

    Born AND raised in Australia?

    So now you’re saying no to people whose (perhaps just one of their) parents or grandparents may have grown up for a bit at RAAF Butterworth or went on exchange with the Royal Navy? Let alone managed a mine in Angola or got a job as a professor in the US for a couple of years.

    The only things that matter are citizenship and undivided loyalty to the Commonwealth.

    Your ideas are just envy riddled bile.

  71. Nerblnob

    He waited five weeks before badgering the British High Commission

    Are you serious?

    Five weeks is nothing to the British Bureaucrat and badgering usually gets your application moved to the bottom of a new pile.

    The four grandparents rule would knock out pretty much all of the Bolt plaintiffs and at least 75% of the indigenous academia gravy train.

    All of my great-grandparents were in Australia by 1890 and about half of them at least 50 years before that as well. But I’m a dual citizen due to convenience of living and working overseas. I think I should self-identify as Aboriginal.

  72. Rabz

    On the four grandparents rule I’d be out. Dad’s pater was born in Torino, the other three, here.

  73. Rabz

    Gee and I’m so disappointed about that.

  74. Peewhit

    Up until about Gough Whitlam’s government you could not be a citizen of any other country and Oz. It was around that time that dual citizenship became allowed. When you were naturalised it was part of it to renounce any other nation.

  75. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Shut it down.

    Fire them all.

    Mound of skulls.

    Salt the earth.

    Rabz, have you ever considered selling “T” shirts, or sweat shirts, emblazoned with the Rabz doctrine?

    I’ve got a sweatshirt bearing Winston Churchill’s quote about socialism, and I did wear it down to vote, at the last State election. For some reason, the Labor bloke, handing out “How to Vote Cards” didn’t offer me one..

  76. Rabz

    ZK2A, Mr Rusty has been marketing the said t-shirts for several years now.

    I own two of them.

    Liberty Line.

  77. Combine Dave

    Rabz
    #2453581, posted on July 28, 2017 at 10:33 pm
    On the four grandparents rule I’d be out. Dad’s pater was born in Torino, the other three, here.

    I would be excluded from office too

    But I would take heart from the fact that the vast majority of the current mob of traitors in Parliament would be excluded in favor of true Aussie born patriots!

  78. Oh come on

    I’m in favour of drastically increasing the eligibility requirements of federal MPs. Having political ambitions should disqualify you from holding office. That’s a good start.

  79. Combine Dave

    .
    #2453554, posted on July 28, 2017 at 9:56 pm
    OK… but haven’t we got a stack of self confessed globalist UN suckups in parliament now? It is without a doubt their allegiance lies not with Australia but with the Eco-Greenie anti-west Gaia worshippers?

    Bang on.

    I don’t have four Australian born grandparents or some other bollocks, but I do want to get out of the UN, indeed, abolish the UN.

    I’m sorry, but under our future nationalist populist regime all open borders autistics will be deported.

    To Manus Island.

    For life.

    No Parliament for you!

  80. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    ZK2A, Mr Rusty has been marketing the said t-shirts for several years now.

    My compliments, and thanks, Squire. If Cats ever hear of someone being arrested while wearing such a sweatshirt, and trying to punch a Greenie, you will say some nice things about me, won’t you?

  81. .

    No worries. I’d claim that I was an Andorran or Tahitian reffo. The Commonwealth can pay the airfare.

  82. Combine Dave

    Oh come on
    #2453596, posted on July 28, 2017 at 11:03 pm
    I’m in favour of drastically increasing the eligibility requirements of federal MPs. Having political ambitions should disqualify you from holding office. That’s a good start.

    Prior public service, membership in a union etc.

  83. Combine Dave

    .
    #2453600, posted on July 28, 2017 at 11:09 pm
    No worries. I’d claim that I was an Andorran or Tahitian reffo. The Commonwealth can pay the airfare

    Transportation of exiles is to be via orange life boat only!

  84. .

    Having political ambitions should disqualify you from holding office. That’s a good start.

    Just embrace sortition.

  85. Rabz

    I’ll be saying them when alongside you, squire.

    Solidarność

  86. Rabz

    Just embrace sortition

    Grabbing them off the street, I will be.

  87. A Lurker

    Third gen Aussie here.
    All four grandparents (now deceased) were born and raised in Australia.
    Can’t get more Aussie than that.
    However, I’d rather have a tooth canal op without anesthetic than run for Parliament.

  88. Entropy

    .
    #2453577, posted on July 28, 2017 at 10:21 pm
    Banning anyone without four grandparents born and raised in Australia is only the beginning of restrictions we need to put in place.

    Born AND raised in Australia?

    So now you’re saying no to people whose (perhaps just one of their) parents or grandparents may have grown up for a bit at RAAF Butterworth or went on exchange with the Royal Navy? Let alone managed a mine in Angola or got a job as a professor in the US for a couple of years.

    The only things that matter are citizenship and undivided loyalty to the Commonwealth.

    Your ideas are just envy riddled bile.

    Maybe dot you could look on it as a reasonable starting point in the debate this little episode has started because our leeching self identified betters suddenly find themselves in a spot of bother. That way when the compromises to reach agreement are made we have some both decent and reasonable restrictions.

    You know, like what the constitution you reckon is flawed has now.

  89. lotocoti

    Banning anyone without four grandparents born and raised in Australia is only the beginning of restrictions we need to put in place.

    Curses.
    My evil plans foiled again.

  90. Roger

    Like Ludlum and Waters a open and shut case.

    Not exactly; they took no steps to renounce their foreign citizenship, Roberts did.

    It will be up to the High Court to determine is those steps were reasonable.

    Clearly there are absurdities to s44 as it is currently understood and the High Court should clear it up asap.

    The only “absurdities” here have arisen because candidates for parliament didn’t exercise due attention to detail. Waters, being a lawyer, is particularly culpable on that score. Ludlam seems to have been just lazy or inept. Since the Australia Act of 1986 the interpretation has been crystal clear: you cannot hold dual nationalities and sit in parliament. There is nothing for the High Court to “clear up”. If you want dual nationals to sit in parliament, it would require a referendum; good luck with that.

  91. Haidee

    That’s right. It’s less about “absurdities” to s44 and much more about the casual attitude of candidates.

  92. notaluvvie

    Why are there so many foreigners so keen to be in parliament to tell we indigenous, ie those of us who don’t come from anywhere else or can travel easily into other countries on second non-Australian passports, what to do?

    I would love to see an audit of present and past members of parliament to see how many renounced their other citizenships. Come on Ms Gillard and Ms Wong, let’s start with you.

  93. Leo G

    From a personal experience… was naturalised when I was I my early teens. My parents DEFINITELY renounced citizenship (on my behalf).

    Minors usually can’t lose citizenship rights by renouncing citizenship or having citizenship renounced on their behalf by a parent or guardian.

  94. Haidee

    Julia Gillard and her flag: A Welsh flag flew for a few months in our area; most houses are fairly grand and a flag can be a not-so-subtle ‘accessory’. But people politely objected and the flag was lowered.

    People sneaking into parliament, concealing dual citizenship ….. no more

  95. Haidee

    Lozzo Mayor told The Weekend Australian that
    it’s a mystery that Canavan did not know he was an Italian citizen – for the past decade.

    Very disappointing, all this

  96. EvilElvis

    Let’s be frank. The whole fucking public service and lobbiest/activist/Ngo wings are just cesspits for useless, fucking, heavily accented, newly minted Aussies, who just love telling us what to do and how to live.

  97. Irreversible

    Anyone who has less than three generations of Australian born family should not be allowed in Parliament. Nor anyone who has ever worked on a taxpayer funded income. Nor anyone who has ever worked for a foreign government. No student politicians. Holders of any status in any religion. Recipients of any public subsidy or government contract. For starters.

  98. Habib

    Can we declare all of the fuckers honourary Norks? Or IS citizens? They might as well be as they’re cleary the enemy. Only thing is there’s no shortage of locally hatched, equally fuckwitted knobswho’d immediately step up. Is anywhere else so heavily endowed with the mediocre, marxist, malfeasant and moronic?

  99. Menai Pete

    Section 44 was not a problem when Labor and The Greens used it to disrupt their political enemies. But a couple of neo-bolshevics get caught by it and they claim it needs to be changed?

  100. mh

    Yes – you read that right: He waited five weeks before badgering the British High Commission.

    So. What was the service standard? Most likely 28 days.

  101. .

    Irreversible
    #2453976, posted on July 29, 2017 at 1:19 pm
    Anyone who has less than three generations of Australian born family should not be allowed in Parliament.

    Why? There are ALP “royalty” who can stand up to this measure and who welcome Chinese dominance in our region.

  102. .

    Maybe dot you could look on it as a reasonable starting point in the debate this little episode has started because our leeching self identified betters suddenly find themselves in a spot of bother. That way when the compromises to reach agreement are made we have some both decent and reasonable restrictions.

    You know, like what the constitution you reckon is flawed has now.

    It is not a reasonable starting point and has nothing to do with those flaws.

    Amazing that you can ramble on about how bad the Senate is, but you won’t acknowledge the abuse of the corporations and external affairs power.

  103. dauf

    I am in full support of politician NOT being able to have dual citizenship. I quite like things as they are and anyone who has never really been a senator/member of parliament should pay it back…that would put a stop to it once and for all.

    Canavan’s situation is a a problem (having an italian father in law I can see how this happened; allegedly in Caravans complete ignorance…i don’t think he will have a problem if he was never told). I also thinks Waters situation is tough (even though i can’t stand her politics…she’s only politics with no principles). However, those that think the rule is outdated need to consider whether they would like say a prime minister who was a dual citizen of, lets see, Russia, Indonesia, China etc even North Korea if they allowed it at their end!)…you can’t pick and choose. The rules have to apply equally.

    Hmm, lets say there’s a war developing. The rule is good and the punishments should be implemented…most of Australia’s problems are from not enforcing laws and always making concessions to parasites

  104. Robber Baron

    Rabz
    #2453574, posted on July 28, 2017 at 10:20 pm
    The parliament is a cesspool of foreigners …

    … and whores and quislings.

    Shut it down.

    Fire them all.

    Mound of skulls.
    Salt the earth.

    This combination of words arouses me. I will make it my new screensaver.

  105. DM OF WA

    What would happen if Australia prohibited dual citizenship altogether?

    Maybe we would see which ones are the true patriots.

    And while they are at it deny social, medical benefits and voting rights to non-citizens!

  106. .

    You might punish some of your most productive citizens as well. Is that worth it? Just apply the law as it stands in plain meaning, short of absurd claims by Italy that being born here automatically gives you Italian citizenship as long as one parent held Italian citizenship etc.

    And while they are at it deny social, medical benefits and voting rights to non-citizens!

    Of course.

  107. cohenite

    As others have noted Roberts renounced his British citizenship, if it existed, prior to being selected. He has acted honourably unlike the other sons and bitches of bitches. If Roberts is kicked out there is no justice in this country (smirk).

  108. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    And while they are at it deny social, medical benefits and voting rights to non-citizens!

    Even those who are holding down well paid jobs, and paying tax at the top rate?

  109. .

    I’m sympathetic to that, but they don’t need social or medical benefits.

  110. Yohan

    Unless that UK renunciation is backdated to before June 6 I can’t see how he can remain in the Parliament.

    Not true. The renunciation of citizenship occurs at the moment the individual makes the claim, not when a foreign governmental bureaucracy decides to act. What if there is no state, like in Somalia? What if a dictatorship says no, such as Saudi Arabia?

    Under Australian law foreign governments are not the arbiters of whether an individual has renounced or not.

    Five weeks later, he hadn’t received a response, so wrote again on June 6 – three days before nominations closed – saying that if he had British citizenship, he fully renounced it.

    That is good enough under the law, and it was done before nominations closed.

  111. Texas Jack

    Section 44 works perfectly. That fuckwits wanting a seat can’t sort out a simple fucking hoop to jump through before they apply says more about them than the brilliantly established constitution. End of story.

  112. DM OF WA

    Texas Jack
    #2454165, posted on July 29, 2017 at 6:24 pm
    Section 44 works perfectly.

    Wrong. Eligibilty should not depend on arbitrary rules set by foreign governments and which can be changed at any time without our knowledge.

    Consider this amusing scenario: a member of parliament has Australian full-blood Aboriginal parents who have never left Australia. Is he eligible to enter parliament? Turns out the member was adopted and his birth parents were both born in Australia. Is he eligible now? Further investigation reveals his birth grandmother was a migrant who was granted Australian citizenship but according to the citizenship rules of her original country her grandchildren are citizens by descent. Too bad!

  113. @SeditionaryI

    DM, simple, we’ll just change it so thatbonly native born Australians to native born parents are eligible.

  114. Diogenes

    seditionary
    what a great idea. if i cannot stand for parliament and have a direct say in setting taxes and policy , then it seems reasonable that i should not have to pay tax.

  115. .

    No taxation without representation trumps gloating about being a convict descendant for me.

    Great point, DM.

  116. @SeditionaryI

    Dio, the casting of a vote is representation.

    Dot, you just don’t want to pay taxes. (can’t hold that against you)

  117. Texas Jack

    Wrong. Eligibilty should not depend on arbitrary rules set by foreign governments and which can be changed at any time without our knowledge.

    All the foreign governments determined to field armies of Australians. Pull the other one DM. If you decide to enter parliament at least have the good grace to check the eligibility rules. Otherwise, fuck off and take your chances.

  118. .

    Why would I want to fund the clusterfuck that is government – “statistical linkage keys”, cheques to dead people to stimulate the economy, commissioners for women’s rights, rigged family courts, the morally dubious and counterproductive war on drugs, 25+ years to NOT build a major airport, subsidies to sportsball earning billion dollar TV deals, propaganda to eat the wrong types of food for nearly 40 years, the coming age of compulsory education from the ages of 3 up until adulthood, decades of police corruption in our four largest states that makes the south of Italy look normal…do I dare go on?

Comments are closed.