Canada, New Zealand, and Italy are just some of the various countries that countless members of the Australian parliament hold a dual citizenship in. Scott Ludlam, Larissa Waters, Malcolm Roberts, and many more, have been caught up in the scandal surrounding dual citizenship. Yesterday, Nationals leader and Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, was added to the ever-growing list which also includes Matt Canavan and John Alexander.
Section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution says anyone with citizenship belonging to a foreign power is incapable of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. Despite being clearly stated, many senators are admitting to holding dual citizenship and being in breach of Section 44(i). Should these
…show more content…
One third of the Australian population is able to successfully divorce, so why is it so hard for these senators to simply renounce their citizenship of another country? If Ludlam, Canavan and Alexander really cared about Australia and their position in governing it, they should have at least checked to see if they were eligible, before signing up.
When nominating for parliament, there is a box that you must tick to confirm that you are not in breach of Section 44 and the various provisions that are set out there. I cannot see how these politicians can be trusted to successfully govern the country, if they cannot even fill out a simple form.
It is obvious from what the Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Turnbull is saying that he is critical of the situation, and the members of parliament involved. Does that mean that we, the public, should be as well? ‘I don’t think it is unreasonable for the constitution to require that if you want to be a Member or a Senator in the Australian Parliament, you should be a citizen of only one country and that’s Australia,’ he
My oral presentation being presented aims to prevent the original date of Australia day from being changed. Recent issues in the media have raised big concerns over the current date of Australia day as the national day that has been celebrated for years is deeply offensive to indigenous Australians and should be deemed as “invasion day”. Recent attempts to ban Australia through indigenous Australians protesting their way to deem Australia January 26th as “invasion day”.
Australia is a very unique place, along with our multiculturalism there is also a strong heritage surrounding us. At first thought of Australian heritage we think about such landmarks as Uluru, The Sydney harbour bridge and The Sydney opera house, The Great Barrier reef and other internationally recognised places. But our heritage goes much deeper than that; it is far more than outstanding icons. Along with these icons there are also unsung places like the old cattle stations, Aboriginal missions, migrant hostels, War memorials, our unique wetlands and the towns and cities we have built. Adding all of these things together, helps to tell the story of who we are and how we have shaped this land in the unique identity it has today.
Of the 8 successful, the 1967 referendum which proposed the removal of the words in section 51 (xxvi) ‘… other than the aboriginal people in any State’ (National Archives of Australia ND), and the deletion of section 127, both, which were discriminative in their nature toward the Aboriginal race, recorded a 90.77% nationwide vote in favour of change (National Archives of Australia, 2014). As a result, the Constitution was altered; highlighting what was believed to be significant positive political change within Indigenous affairs at the time (National Archives of Australia, 2014). Approaching 50 years on, discussion has resurfa...
no author. (2011). New Australian of the Year Wants to Debate an Australian Republic. Available: http://www.republic.org.au/story/new-australian-year-wants-australians-debate-australian-republic-courier-mail-26111. Last accessed 20th June 2011.
The only time Australia has come under direct attack from another country, was when Japan bombed Darwin and sunk a number of ships in Sydney, during World War 2. The question then has to be asked, why Australia has been involved in so many conflicts. A number of recent conflicts in this century come to mind, they include, The Boer War, World War One, World War Two and The Vietnam War. By far the conflict that drew the most outrage from Australian citizens was the Vietnam War. Australia has been drawn into these conflicts through a number of treaties and alliances made with other countries. Often it is not the conflicts that have drawn most outrage from Australian citizens, rather the insistence of other countries, for Australia to accept large numbers of post-war refugees.
There is a high degree of complexity in this question. Should Australia, as a mature nation, be taking part in moral issues around the world even though they are not happening on our doorstep? Do we ignore the deaths in Bosnia, the starving millions in Biafra and Ethiopia, the worldwide environmental issues raised by Greenpeace? What is the purpose of developing alliances, both economic and military, with other countries? At stake, in all of these issues, is our desire for a better world to live in.
Russell, titled ‘End Australia Day’, which simply advocates that it’s ‘time to let it [Australia Day] go’. Contrasting with Roberts-Smith, who was calm and collected, Russell is abrupt and almost pleading at times. The day has ‘outlived its usefulness’ and it’s adamant to Russell that it is time for a change. Noting suitable day changes, such as ‘July 9’, is high on his to-do list. However, he also believes the Constitution is ‘outdated’ and that to be fair to all in Australia it would be wise to ‘scrap it and start again’. His factual statements on the past allow the reader to acknowledge that their ancestors did play a part in the oppression of the Indigenous, but the recommendation of changing the Constitution entirely could be viewed as ludicrous. As trying to cater for everyone in the “new Constitution” could still mean that groups are left out, and the cost of this idea could turn heads in the opposite
House of Representatives. (1965, April 29). Retrieved March 16, 2014, from Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates: http://www.dva.gov.au/commems_oawg/commemorations/education/Documents/avw_topic1.pdf
Ozdowski, Sev. 2007. Why We Need an Australian Bill of Rights Now. Pg. 22-25. Swinburne Online Library. Viewed 19th December 2016.
However, this doesn’t entirely suggest that we don’t have certain attributes about us that make us a good nation because we undoubtedly do but not very often, in this case, the bad outweighs the good. In many ways, you could argue that refugees and climate change only make up small sectors of our reputation but those are only to name a few and there are defiantly more issues within Australia than those such as the mistreatment of aboriginals, budget cuts to foreign aid etc. Overall I strongly stand by the opinion that Australia does not act morally good as a global
Since the time of federation the Aboriginal people have been fighting for their rights through protests, strikes and the notorious ‘day of mourning’. However, over the last century the Australian federal government has generated policies which manage and restrained that of the Aboriginal people’s rights, citizenships and general protection. The Australian government policy that has had the most significant impact on indigenous Australians is the assimilation policy. The reasons behind this include the influences that the stolen generation has had on the indigenous Australians, their relegated rights and their entitlement to vote and the impact that the policy has had on the indigenous people of Australia.
So what does this mean about our Government? Are they scared of the intake of Refugees? If so, what are they scared of? This contradicts the whole purpose of the Government, aren’t Australians meant to put our trust in leaders to make great decisions, hence we have a Government in the first place? Doctrines such as the Just War Doctrine a Catholic based Law, states that the Government should hold the responsibility for the common good. Yet not every country experiences this, and many Refugees have to flee in order for their freedom and to escape from persecution of their own beliefs, religions and human
Ever since the 1970s, Australia has become a multicultural nation. Australia’s multiculturalism is a way to explain the variety of ethnic backgrounds within the Australian people. “It implies that there are many ways of being Australian, not just one ‘Australian way of life’” (Carter 333). Multiculturalism has majorly changed the way that people view Australian history and identity.
This paper concludes with that Rowe is an important case for Australia representative democracy because it underlines the implied right to vote supported under sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution along with the previous case, Roach. It also defines the importance of the equal electorate to maintain the representative democracy as well.
Instead, multiculturalism places a wide range of claims of accommodation such as religion, ethnicity, language, race and nationality (Song, 2010). In the case of Australia, the acceptance of multiculturalism based on such far-flung claims has essentially resulted in the advent of politics of recognition among the minority groups seeking accommodation or integration in Australia. This is shown by Song (2010) who states that key among the claims fronted by Australia’s minority groups is self-government or at least some sort of recognition that affords such communities a form of autonomy. One key comparison is the aboriginal communities of Australia and those of Canada, whereby claims for recognition based on the uniqueness of ethnicity have left a bad taste in the mouth of white