SA Footy

bennymacca wrote:

Pistol Pete wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Barnaby is back

I dont think he was ever going to not get back in.

Was there a swing for or against him?

Probably shows that people don’t really care about the fact that he was a kiwi. I think the law needs to be changed

Yes, I think it was a de facto referendum on section 44, notwithstanding it showed that Barnaby couldn't do the basic due diligence as expected of someone entering Parliament.

Anyhoo, I agree that section 44 is a relic from a bygone era, and should be changed to reflect the current multi-cultural make-up of the Australian population, and by extension, the Parliament. Trying to convince the Australian population of that proposition will be difficult, given the very poor record of successful referenda since Federation.

At any rate, Barnaby was never going to lose New England. Bennelong, now that will be interesting. JA will need some pretty tight strings and a fast set of Dunlop Volleys to avoid the possibility of being unexpectedly aced by Keneally.

Magellan wrote:

bennymacca wrote:

Pistol Pete wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Barnaby is back

I dont think he was ever going to not get back in.

Was there a swing for or against him?

Probably shows that people don’t really care about the fact that he was a kiwi. I think the law needs to be changed

Yes, I think it was a de facto referendum on section 44, notwithstanding it showed that Barnaby couldn't do the basic due diligence as expected of someone entering Parliament.

Anyhoo, I agree that section 44 is a relic from a bygone era, and should be changed to reflect the current multi-cultural make-up of the Australian population, and by extension, the Parliament. Trying to convince the Australian population of that proposition will be difficult, given the very poor record of successful referenda since Federation.

At any rate, Barnaby was never going to lose New England. Bennelong, now that will be interesting. JA will need some pretty tight strings and a fast set of Dunlop Volleys to avoid the possibility of being unexpectedly aced by Keneally.

I dont agree on s44. Leave it as is. Why should we change sole allegiance to Australia to suit these numpties?

Agree on Bennelong. Can Keneally bury her past? Shorten seems to be able to do it

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/south-australias-11-sitting-senators-produce-documents-to-prove-they-arent-dualcitizens/news-story/e1a6d1b6481fc764558f627040915920?login=1

Deputy Labor Senate Leader Don Farrell said he paternal grandfather was born in the United Kingdom and he had been advised by British authorities he did not have an entitlement to citizenship by descent.

Didn't take the pig long to get his face back into the trough

Magellan wrote:

bennymacca wrote:

Pistol Pete wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Barnaby is back

I dont think he was ever going to not get back in.

Was there a swing for or against him?

Probably shows that people don’t really care about the fact that he was a kiwi. I think the law needs to be changed

Yes, I think it was a de facto referendum on section 44, notwithstanding it showed that Barnaby couldn't do the basic due diligence as expected of someone entering Parliament.

Anyhoo, I agree that section 44 is a relic from a bygone era, and should be changed to reflect the current multi-cultural make-up of the Australian population, and by extension, the Parliament. Trying to convince the Australian population of that proposition will be difficult, given the very poor record of successful referenda since Federation.

At any rate, Barnaby was never going to lose New England. Bennelong, now that will be interesting. JA will need some pretty tight strings and a fast set of Dunlop Volleys to avoid the possibility of being unexpectedly aced by Keneally.

Without looking it up, I would expect that the percentage of persons living in Aus born overseas when the Constitution was written in the 1890's would be similar to todays rate, and perhaps more so those aged over the then voting/eligibility to stand for parliament .

Its not that hard to check and renounce conferred citizenship from other another country and I for one do not endorse any change that has been highlighted due to laziness, stupidity and a lack of governance.

DOC wrote: Without looking it up, I would expect that the percentage of persons living in Aus born overseas when the Constitution was written in the 1890's would be similar to todays rate, and perhaps more so those aged over the then voting/eligibility to stand for parliament .

Its not that hard to check and renounce conferred citizenship from other another country and I for one do not endorse any change that has been highlighted due to laziness, stupidity and a lack of governance.

I agree that a number of the cases have been as a result of "laziness, stupidity and a lack of governance". However, some of those uncovered have also been pretty obscure and it's unsurprising that they'd actually have no idea that they have dual citizenship.
It's pretty clear, however, that most pollies were just ticking the box when they nominated, without further investigating. The candidates and parties have a lot to be embarrassed about. I reckon, after all this, you'd check before nominating at each election - as it seems some of these changes can occur with regularity.

PS: Some fringe media have been discussing Turnbull's legitimacy to his political position due to his Jewish heritage. MSM has not yet picked up on this as a story. I'm not suggesting it's true, but it makes for interesting reading.

DOC wrote:

Magellan wrote:

bennymacca wrote:

Pistol Pete wrote:[quote="mighty_tiger_79"]Barnaby is back

I dont think he was ever going to not get back in.

Was there a swing for or against him?

Probably shows that people don’t really care about the fact that he was a kiwi. I think the law needs to be changed

Yes, I think it was a de facto referendum on section 44, notwithstanding it showed that Barnaby couldn't do the basic due diligence as expected of someone entering Parliament.

Anyhoo, I agree that section 44 is a relic from a bygone era, and should be changed to reflect the current multi-cultural make-up of the Australian population, and by extension, the Parliament. Trying to convince the Australian population of that proposition will be difficult, given the very poor record of successful referenda since Federation.

At any rate, Barnaby was never going to lose New England. Bennelong, now that will be interesting. JA will need some pretty tight strings and a fast set of Dunlop Volleys to avoid the possibility of being unexpectedly aced by Keneally.

Without looking it up, I would expect that the percentage of persons living in Aus born overseas when the Constitution was written in the 1890's would be similar to todays rate, and perhaps more so those aged over the then voting/eligibility to stand for parliament .

Its not that hard to check and renounce conferred citizenship from other another country and I for one do not endorse any change that has been highlighted due to laziness, stupidity and a lack of governance.[/quote]

Two separate issues. Got no sympathy for those that are too lazy to check their citizenship status.

But whether it should be a law in the first place is a seperate issue. Given we allow dual citizenship for everything else, what is the law designed to protect against?

Just to put it in perspective - plenty of dual citizens in defence where I work

bennymacca wrote:Two separate issues. Got no sympathy for those that are too lazy to check their citizenship status.

But whether it should be a law in the first place is a seperate issue. Given we allow dual citizenship for everything else, what is the law designed to protect against?

Just to put it in perspective - plenty of dual citizens in defence where I work

well then the time to try to change that law was before umpteen members of parliament have been caught breaking it. its only been a rule for 100 odd years. bit late to complain about it after you have been to the high court over it....

while this rule may seem to be a bit outdated, and even arbritrary, its just the sort of rule that polititians love to enact for us lowly plebs. stuff em.

The Australian Public Service requirement is to be an Australian Citizen, with (as you point out) no restriction on also holding other citizenship. This is but one of the many strange employment restrictions in the APS, such as not being allowed to run for parliament.

The constitution , specifically S44, intends to ensure that those governing the country have no declared allegiance to any other country.

I will be the first to agree with you that Citizenship is not the defining point as to whether an individual has an allegiance to another power.

"Spys/Traitors" have never needed citizenship to foster that allegiance. Money will normally do it.

Turnbull carrying on in Parliament over the SSM....
Im not sure how he can try the grandstanding and claim it as a win....
Surely its a monumental failure of his leadership that he needed to piss up $120mill down the drain or whatever it was....

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Turnbull carrying on in Parliament over the SSM....
Im not sure how he can try the grandstanding and claim it as a win....
Surely its a monumental failure of his leadership that he needed to piss up $120mill down the drain or whatever it was....

I guess, from a Liberal party political perspective, the ends justified the means, and it gives Turnbull something to crow about (even though the survey was inspired by Abbott and Turnbull pandered to him in allowing it to occur). It may now give Turnbull and the moderates in the party the confidence to tell the right wing of the Libs to **** off now that the Australian public has shown that it is not as conservative as the true conservatives had thought.

But you're right, it could've been done in a few days in parliament without the enormous expense.

Magellan wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Turnbull carrying on in Parliament over the SSM....
Im not sure how he can try the grandstanding and claim it as a win....
Surely its a monumental failure of his leadership that he needed to piss up $120mill down the drain or whatever it was....

I guess, from a Liberal party political perspective, the ends justified the means, and it gives Turnbull something to crow about (even though the survey was inspired by Abbott and Turnbull pandered to him in allowing it to occur). It may now give Turnbull and the moderates in the party the confidence to tell the right wing of the Libs to **** off now that the Australian public has shown that it is not as conservative as the true conservatives had thought.

But you're right, it could've been done in a few days in parliament without the enormous expense.

worse was abbott trying to claim credit as it 'was his policy" and then not even taking part in the vote. spent all day arguing for the amendments he wanted, yet when it came down to it he scurried for the door quick smart.

Magellan wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Turnbull carrying on in Parliament over the SSM....
Im not sure how he can try the grandstanding and claim it as a win....
Surely its a monumental failure of his leadership that he needed to piss up $120mill down the drain or whatever it was....

I guess, from a Liberal party political perspective, the ends justified the means, and it gives Turnbull something to crow about (even though the survey was inspired by Abbott and Turnbull pandered to him in allowing it to occur). It may now give Turnbull and the moderates in the party the confidence to tell the right wing of the Libs to **** off now that the Australian public has shown that it is not as conservative as the true conservatives had thought.

But you're right, it could've been done in a few days in parliament without the enormous expense.

I expect that a number conservative wing of the LNP along with other conservative elements outside the LNP would have voted "NO" alongside some ALP representatives in a simple free vote, and that Tony Abbott only abstained rather than vote "NO" now because the survey demonstrated to him that even his own electorate disagreed with his position.

On that basis I think a plebiscite or a survey demonstrating the will of the people was required to achieve the most prompt and positive result.

I suspect that Bill Shorten wanted a free vote, not to achieve marriage equality, but because having the bill defeated in a free vote would have suited him best for a future election campaign.

Psyber wrote:I expect that...Tony Abbott only abstained rather than vote "NO" now because the survey demonstrated to him that even his own electorate disagreed with his position.

If that's the case case then why pissfart around in Parliament trying to fight the passage of the Bill? Once the results of the survey came back he should've simply gone surfing or have a few rounds of boxing until the Christmas break. It only demonstrates that Abbott likes the thrust* and parry of a fight above anything else, and that his best career fit is as an attack dog and not much else.

bennymacca wrote: Got no sympathy for those that are too lazy to check their citizenship status.

But whether it should be a law in the first place is a seperate issue. Given we allow dual citizenship for everything else, what is the law designed to protect against?

Just to put it in perspective - plenty of dual citizens in defence where I work

Further (and defining) perspective is that the ADF doesn't insist on dual citizens renouncing foreign citizenship, so there'd be plenty in the ADF as well. One J. Lambie springs to mind - and I'm not a fanboy by any means.

If we can trust people with our lives, surely we can trust them with our laws.

Magellan wrote:

Psyber wrote:I expect that...Tony Abbott only abstained rather than vote "NO" now because the survey demonstrated to him that even his own electorate disagreed with his position.

If that's the case case then why pissfart around in Parliament trying to fight the passage of the Bill? Once the results of the survey came back he should've simply gone surfing or have a few rounds of boxing until the Christmas break. It only demonstrates that Abbott likes the thrust* and parry of a fight above anything else, and that his best career fit is as an attack dog and not much else.

His actions certainly weren't of a member listening to the wishes of his electorate. Frosty Xmas at Tony's place this year when sis arrives?

Booney wrote:

Magellan wrote:

Psyber wrote:I expect that...Tony Abbott only abstained rather than vote "NO" now because the survey demonstrated to him that even his own electorate disagreed with his position.

If that's the case case then why pissfart around in Parliament trying to fight the passage of the Bill? Once the results of the survey came back he should've simply gone surfing or have a few rounds of boxing until the Christmas break. It only demonstrates that Abbott likes the thrust* and parry of a fight above anything else, and that his best career fit is as an attack dog and not much else.

His actions certainly weren't of a member listening to the wishes of his electorate. Frosty Xmas at Tony's place this year when sis arrives?

Quite right. The funny thing is, though, they also weren't the actions of a man of strong principles guided by his conscience.

Magellan wrote:

Psyber wrote:I expect that...Tony Abbott only abstained rather than vote "NO" now because the survey demonstrated to him that even his own electorate disagreed with his position.

If that's the case case then why pissfart around in Parliament trying to fight the passage of the Bill? Once the results of the survey came back he should've simply gone surfing or have a few rounds of boxing until the Christmas break. It only demonstrates that Abbott likes the thrust* and parry of a fight above anything else, and that his best career fit is as an attack dog and not much else.

Some truth there and if he'd been able to push a few amendments through he may have been able to save a little more face.

I'd already declared myself to Liberal party administration as not able to bring myself to vote Liberal while Tony was leader after the 2014 budget, despite being a member of the party for years. Even with the change of leader I still voted for Rebekha Sharkie over Jamie Briggs in Mayo - as did several other local party members I know and not of the scandal reported in the media, but over his general attitude in the electorate.

Had nothing to do with his electorate. He didn’t want the footage of being one of the only people sitting on the no side of parliament when they voted as it would have made for a great metaphor for out of Touch he is

bennymacca wrote:Had nothing to do with his electorate. He didn’t want the footage of being one of the only people sitting on the no side of parliament when they voted as it would have made for a great metaphor for out of Touch he is

Such depth of conviction, and such an unshakeable conscience irrespective of the circumstances and the consequences. Like Sir Thomas More, Tony Abbott truly is a man for all seasons.

How many newspolls now is it that Turnbull has lost?