Self governance is complicated, but you'll figure it out, and tighten up the rules and regulations, as you adjust to this and future challenges. It's an ongoing battle you know trying to stay viable and credible. Growing pains?

It isn't about self governance, it is about due diligence, are you qualified to be a candidate or not? It was easy at the time of federation, we were all british subjects and anyone who wasn't wasn't qualified and in good nineteenth century fashion this was vaguely defined in the constitution but in changing circumstance, even a british subject is not qualified. It is very difficult to change the constitution, most attempts have failed because of the convoluted rules associated with doing so. The parliament can't just vote a change into place.

This debacle has come to the point where the amount of revenue defrauded by these unqualifed candidates over the terms they have been seated in parliament is $9,600,000

You don't have to change the constitution to get a legislative fix to your dilemma, do you? Well I guess you have to wait before you get the right legislatures elected that WANT to close those loopholes. That's not easy if the intent is to keep certain people out of your ruling class.

You can't legislate contrary to the Constitution, there have been a number of provisions seeking to illluminate section 44, but the provision against dual citizenship remains. The problem is other nations claim citizens even though they may never have lived there though provisions that confer citizenship on children and grand children or provisions that confer citizenship at birth to children of foreign nationals. This is a multicultural nation with many first, second and third generation of migrant background, but becoming a naturalised citizen doesn't demand you repudiate former allegiences.

In this latest case, he should have known and should have outed himself sooner. We are only trying to keep people who may not be 100% committed out of parliament, this is a difficult age with many trade agreements and treaties being made as well as conflicts and it is important that those making decisions are not swayed in their judgement by such allegiences. Our multiculturism was vigoursly pursued in earlier decades by children of migrant families

Another saga begins as Josh Frydenburg is outed as a Hungarian citizen because his mother was made stateless by the nazi Germany. The only sane way this can end is to ensure no Australian born child of an Australian citizen can be conferred citizenship of another country irrespective of the laws of that foreign country. The whole point is, who is in control of our destiny, this nation or some foreign dictate

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-0...enship/9113982

Draining the swamp? Or purging the ruling class with a purity test? Make the aborigines' the ruling class since they are the only ones who can be GUARANTEED to be loyal to THEIR country.

The whole idea of whose a loyal immigrant is suspect anyway but I suppose your judiciary knows best.

Tal, the aborigines are incapable of handling their own affairs, their method of democracy is that every person should be heard and so nothing gets done, in 60,000 years they never even invented a house. The country they are loyal to is their "country" or tribal lands, which might as well be somewhereelse.

I am sixth generation Tal, there is no other place for me to be even though my father was an immigrant who came as a child, to suggest that I am not totally loyal to my nation is offensive, and to suggest that I might be loyal to a foreign nation is offensive.

I have no doubt this is the same for those outed in this debacle. Like your own constitution, our constitution carries with it thinking that is difficult to constrew in modern circumstances and redefinition is needed

Tal, the aborigines are incapable of handling their own affairs, their method of democracy is that every person should be heard and so nothing gets done, in 60,000 years they never even invented a house. The country they are loyal to is their "country" or tribal lands, which might as well be somewhere else.

Okay so they don't do it the Euro way, so what? You immigrants came conquered and suppressed the natives, and that makes you better? Naw just stronger and more aggressive. Unlike you immigrants who squabble over divided loyalties, and heritages they have none of that. That don't possess the land they lived in it. What need did they have for fine and proper Euro homes?

I am sixth generation Tal, there is no other place for me to be even though my father was an immigrant who came as a child, to suggest that I am not totally loyal to my nation is offensive, and to suggest that I might be loyal to a foreign nation is offensive.

I meant no offense nor implied any, just pointing out what you admit you are, an immigrant and subject to whatever laws the judge says so. I didn't make your silly rules or constitution. Save your offence for the JUDGE.

I have no doubt this is the same for those outed in this debacle. Like your own constitution, our constitution carries with it thinking that is difficult to constrew in modern circumstances and redefinition is needed

And that's why we still STRIVE to define ourselves TODAY, just like you are, so for all the offensive crap you have hurled at MY COUNTRY on this forum, you have proved no better than us...which has been my point all along.

You know Tal, the point is we immigrants of 1822 did no such thing, we had good relations with the locals, large numbers still inhabit the place where we settled today. I'm not suggesting they needed fine homes, but in this climate good shelter is a basic necessity. The aborigines were immigrants of another age, and we did much less to our natives than you did to yours. We did not go into open warfare against them, but there were some misguided individuals who sought to profit by their death. The first Governor was under instructions to have peaceful relations with the natives. You think our aborigines do not squabble among themselves, you are deluded, the reason nothing gets done is they cannot agree, the idea of consensus is not in their culture. I am perfectly happy for them to live in tribal lands if that is what they want, but they want handouts too, sit down money. Most aboriginal deaths were as a result of disease, they were particularly susceptible to the diseases of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century


Your country is in a stalemate, and deliberately so, and the sad part is you want to export this form of government thinking it better. Our form of government has advantages but is hamstrung by nineteenth century thinking just as yours is hamstrung by eighteenth century thinking. My country has been landed in a predicament by that nineteenth century thinking, but we do have a way out, we don't have fixed terms and maybe that is a good thing. When I said I was offended I didn't mean you, I am offended by the nineteenth century clowns who wrote such a provision, limiting the options of a person who can count more Australian ancestors than most aborigine can name and casting aspersions on the loyalty of the children of immigrants

Oh stop taking everything so personally, as your history is the history of all of us, and tracks the same way if not exactly, then very close. I get national pride, got some of that myself, as imperfect and misplaced as it is sometimes. Sometimes though I think in our zeal to settle new lands we forget how we move the NATIVES aside for our own purpose, and what starts as friendly co operation and co habitation turns to SUBJUGATION at expect assimilation as you build what you left and look down your noses at what was here.

At it's core is the very human flaw of justifying your own actions (We called it "manifest destiny) to just take over someone's else's land and call it yours, without the thought of paying them RENT. They would be so wrong to deny you immigration into their lands, and boy you would have been so insulted by that rejection you probably would have invaded by force of arms instead of force of numbers. That's been done too, so don't for a minute try to say how peaceful you came because an invasion and occupation by open arms or bearing arms is still the same outcome isn't it?

You own the new land and the natives are just lazy savages wanting a handout from your generosity! You balk at their unwillingness to assimilate when all they want is to live FREE as they have before you got there. Now you can spin that anyway you want but fact remains that is the human history repeated over, and over again, with the same OUTCOME. Come on Clete, you are not that unique from the rest of humanity, you are just in denial because you rather think you are.

That too is a human trait we all share as well as the lack of empathy for those you pushed aside to further your own agenda. To the point of this post and no offence here but we have been playing the same dirty politics tricks for a very long time, so I understand and have empathy for your predicament. I predict you to will be stagnant until you figure it out, as we did. I only hope you don't suffer a nincompoop like Trump along the way. I also predict many more challenges to YOUR system, so just be cool and deal with it.

Human evolution is seldom swift, smooth, or pretty. It helps if you recognize the stink you smell is your own, and all humans have their own stink, separate and apart but equal in aroma. May as well quit pretending yours is BETTER.

We have already been through an era of nincompoops, with Rudd and Gillard and their self agrandizement, not that they were the only popularists we have suffered, another was Witlam who was ousted in a coup in 1975.

Well done, tal!

Well the solution is upon us, all members are to declare their status, now I thought they were actually doing this when they nominated but this is to be formal, like filling in an expense report. Our Prime Minister has made what is considered a brave political decision after one more stalwart wants to argue whether he had dual citizenship, and an even braver individual wants a referendum on Constitutional change to permit dual citizenship among parliamentarians, afteral if it is good enough for the rest of us it should be good enough for them

All this drama and so simple a solution? Are you guys bored or something? The Dufus show is playing in your neighborhood. Keep him long as you want.

On a serious note still sounds like a dirty political trick.

No he's not in our neighbourhood, he is off annoying Kim again and playing those old tunes, ain't america great, and we are first, you know. No we are not bored, it seems we might have a dufus of our own in the person of Turncoat, he doesn't want to risk his ever shrinking majority on any more of these idiots being found out. He could also think about punitive penalties. Well maybe he's hoping some of the opposition will be caught out, there are a lot of migrant lefty types on that side of the house. You see section 44 isn't really open to interpretation, either you are a dual citizen or you are not, and it is other places that grant that right

Another one, outspoken senator Jacqui Lambie is the latest with dual nationality. Does no one follow the rules? Or is expedience the order of the day? The above post is jacqui's response

What I find a nonsense about this is that most are being outed for being citizens of Commonwealth countries with allegiance to the same ultimate head of state

Get yourself to the High Court, this is the advice the PM gave to the latest cross bencher to stick their hand up, apparently Ms. Sharky received notification of revocation after she was elected. The way I read it she should not have been on the ballot paper so this brings a recount and with it probably the loss of the majority in the House

So this is constitutional crisis of someone's making, you can't make this stuff up. Last time we had a constitutional crisis was 1975, and I'm wondering, what does it take for the Governor-General to act this time?

Bill Shorten might have the last laugh after all, and that would bring the budgee smuggler from down under thundering back

or is it

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-1...stions/9140026

aboriginal activist Senator Patrick Dobson, eminent person among the indigenous community, may not be as aboriginal as it seems, and would therefore not be eligible to become a member of parliament, or I suspect a member of that third house he is touting.

Do you have a link to the law that makes such an issue of people lineage? I find it incredible that civilized societies can pick who is loyal enough to serve their country. Smacks of the birther movement that Obama went through, and it turned out to be a political tactic. Your situation sounds like a political tactic and shows a disturbing trend in your democracy.

44. Any person who -
(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power: or
(ii.) Is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer: or
(iii.) Is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent: or
(iv.) Holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth: or
(v.) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons:
Shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.