General Australian Politics Discussion

[Joseph41]

Cripes. The Greens aren't having a good run with resignations at the moment.

EDIT: For clarity, Larissa Waters has resigned.

[strawberries]

What do y'all think about the citizenship law though?

[Joseph41]

What do y'all think about the citizenship law though?

I don't fully understand it. Is it just a blanket rule that dual citizenship is a no-go? If so, what's the rationale? Conflict of interest?

[vox nihili]

I don't fully understand it. Is it just a blanket rule that dual citizenship is a no-go? If so, what's the rationale? Conflict of interest?

Yes, blanket rule.

Any person who:

is under any acknowledgment 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 a citizen of a foreign power; [...]
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

My understanding is that the rationale is just as you said, a perceived conflict of interest.


In my personal view it was a completely reasonable provision then and is completely reasonable now. It protects against the potential for foreign nationals to influence our country in a way that serves the benefits of their own country, rather than our own. I think that's a reasonably remote possibility; however, the cost of having this provision in the constitution is fairly low in any case, so it's sensible to be a little bit careful. 

[Bri MT]

it seems quite sad that people are losing their jobs due to a formality which they didn't know about, I hope that there was an option for them to immediately begin the process of renouncing their citizenships and retain their seats.

[Joseph41]

it seems quite sad that people are losing their jobs due to a formality which they didn't know about, I hope that there was an option for them to immediately begin the process of renouncing their citizenships and retain their seats.

Is ignorance a relevant consideration in a situation like this, though? (Genuine question.)

[Bri MT]

Is ignorance a relevant consideration in a situation like this, though? (Genuine question.)

It's very difficult to prove ignorance so maybe not

[vox nihili]

Is ignorance a relevant consideration in a situation like this, though? (Genuine question.)

Certainly not. I agree that Larissa Waters' story certainly seems like that of someone who was genuinely ignorant of her situation, but Scott Ludlum's was either total rubbish or ignorance bordering on incompetence.


Not a reflection on what you've said, but I think the discussion around this would be very different if the senators that had had to resign were far right of centre (polar opposite of Ludlum and Waters who are far left, of course).

[K888]

Admittedly, I'm not super up to date with Australian politics. I sort of follow it on the news, but am not familiar with all the nuances of the system.
I have two questions:

- Will Ludlam & Waters be able to re-enter politics in the future if they renounce their dual citizenships?
- Do their seats face a recount, or does another Greens member just replace them in their respective seats?

[EEEEEEP]

Is ignorance a relevant consideration in a situation like this, though? (Genuine question.)

Hard to say.. .but idk.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't care if people are of dual citizen (as long they are competent).

[vox nihili]

Admittedly, I'm not super up to date with Australian politics. I sort of follow it on the news, but am not familiar with all the nuances of the system.
I have two questions:

- Will Ludlam & Waters be able to re-enter politics in the future if they renounce their dual citizenships?
- Do their seats face a recount, or does another Greens member just replace them in their respective seats?

1. Yes.
2. Both, actually. The Court of Disputed returns (a session of the High Court) will have to hear the case and determine what to do, but basically what will happen is they'll do a recount. Then whoever the next people on the Greens' senate list will be called up. The bloke who's replacing Ludlum though has already indicated that he might resign as soon as he's called up, so that the Greens can vote on who to replace Ludlum with. In this case they would be appointing someone to a casual vacancy and tradition (though not law) dictates that a senator who resigns will be replaced by someone selected by the senator's party. It's actually the state parliament of the state from which the senator comes that decides, but they nearly always follow the advice of the party (only exception I can think of was Arthur Field, who was appointed by Joh Bjelke Petersen's government in 1975 against the advice of the Labor party).
If the bloke who replaces Ludlum actually does resign and the Greens have to choose someone to replace him, that person could conceivably be Scott Ludlum if he renounces his citizenship. Go figure.

[mixel]

however, the cost of having this provision in the constitution is fairly low in any case, so it's sensible to be a little bit careful.

Hey, I used to think the same but I read an article saying that 1 in 4 Australians is eligible for a dual citizenship, and it implied that if any of those 6+ million people were to stand for election, they'd have to formally renounce ties with that country (I haven't fact checked either of those claims, but it was in SMH)

I feel like the potential foreign influence concern is a bit unrealistic. If any dual citizens were to stand for election, its a reasonable assumption that either A) they wouldn't be standing for election for subversive reasons on behalf of another country because the long slog to elect one representative will probably have no effect / they'd be demonstrating preference for Australia with their residence and desire to represent, B) they'll get poor support because most people are understandably concerned about foreign influence, or C) they'd stand for election in an electorate largely representing Australians of similar cultural background, which would be a positive because there would presumably be no better person to balance the interests of Australia as a nation with awareness of the issues dealt with by the minority communities they represent.

That said, because it's a constitutional issue there's practically no chance of it ever being amended, so there isn't really any point debating it as much as letting it renew discussion about what it means to be an Australian

[vox nihili]

This article from the Conversation addresses the topic well.

It also raises some of the points you made, mixel

[vox nihili]

FYI

Another one bites the dust.

[Joseph41]

FYI

Another one bites the dust.

Incredible sloppiness.