Govt Dual Citizens

Distortion of Claim

RouleResponse
Jul 28, 2017 · 7 min read

The implementation of Citizen should be a Noble attainment for those who are NOT born in Australia & those who are that wish to enter those hallowed halls of Parliament should consider the oath taken to be a privilege.

However, the Issue of ones Citizenship should be beyond reproach when measured against the Role of Parliamentarian, after all, the Oath of Allegiance is to Australia AND the Legal Citizens. Reference or obligation to a Foreign Entity should be counted in the protocols of Treason at the very least.

#QUESTION = Has the Political Establishment of Australia been fractured to the point of Globalists ownership where even the High Court must rule on specific words ??

Consider -;

“High Court to consider meaning of ‘entitled’, — University of New South Wales constitutional law expert George Williams said the meaning of “entitled” had never been considered by the High Court.” — “At this stage, the focus has just been on where someone clearly has citizenship conferred by another country,” Professor Williams told the ABC’s PM. But yes, the constitution does also suggest that if someone merely has an entitlement to take that up, even if they haven’t done so to this point, then they would be disqualified. “It’s not something the High Court has looked at, but the wording is broad and yes there is potentially a problem there.” — Professor Williams said that section of the constitution could impact other MPs as well, and was drafted at a time when people in Australia were considered British subjects” — See = http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-28/liberal-party-to-clarify-citizenship-status-of-julia-banks/8753616

However, the following CANNOT be Ignored at ANY Level.

“COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT — SECT 44 Disqualification -; Any person who: (i) 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 — (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; — = “ shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives” — — See = http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html

Qualifications of senator — = Section 16 = The qualifications of a senator shall be the same as those of a member of the House of Representatives. — — PLUS = Section 43 states: A member of either House of the Parliament shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a member of the other House”

“There are mounting cries for “Exemption” for the accused Politicians based on a variety of “excuses” but one must consider Why such a call is contemplated. The AEC starkly states, in regard to the qualifications: “Candidates who have any doubts about their eligibility by virtue of section 44 of the Constitution are advised to obtain their own legal advice

The News puts this issue well -; “Last election 994 people nominated as candidates for the July 2 House of Representatives election, and 631 for the Senate. The commission could not possibly run its own checks on their qualifications. Further, the timing of elections is against this. Nominations close on a Thursday and the printing of ballots has to start the following Saturday to be available on polling day. It is all up to the candidates and those who can’t match the demand for detail will surely cast doubt on their ability to be parliamentary representatives” — See = http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/dual-citizenship-fiasco-bolsters-the-view-that-politicians-are-incompetent/news-story/a7d2a366fd657bd4fe27c496f66d1bed

The Bigger Issue here is one of TRUST

#QUESTION = Can the Australian People TRUST the Politicians like -; Senator Roberts, Scott Ludlam, Ms Waters, Senator Canavan, or Heather Hill & Bob Wood before them, plus likely a few others who enter Parliament & are Paid huge sums to actually be Lawfull in their duties & obligations to the Public & Country — OR — is this just another symptom of the so called “Entitlements” scam that continually plagues the Australian People” ??

“ The Nationals senator Matt Canavan argues he should remain eligible to be in Parliament because he did not know his mother registered him at all when he was 25. However, wikipedia states -; “ Matthew James Canavan (born 17 December 1980) is an Australian politician. He was elected to the Australian Senate representing the state of Queensland at the 2013 federal election for the term beginning 1 July 2014”. — One must ask if he also did NOT read the AEC memo NOR the s44 contingent of the Constitution BEFORE accepting the role for Political endorsement. Like others, one must again consider the Calibre of so called Politicians & ask -;

#QUESTION = Are Politicians agendas aimed at Personal Level of Greed OR desire instead of the Constituent & Country best interest — OR — are they just so arrogant that they consider themselves above the Law ??

If they “failed to consider EVERY Issue of relevance” BEFORE Political procedure, then what point does that say about the Relevance of Claim OR indeed the capacity of determinant use of the Political Realm for the Public benefit. A further issue is whether “the “internal” Political mechanisms” actually foster an increased “Right” of both aided Self importance & Self Entitlement. When considering this point, one must also note the palpable “change in discourse with the Public BEFORE an Election & AFTER” ascending into the Political Elite of Parliament. This very obviously highlights the fragmentation of public needs & requirements which places the shards at a level of NO Consequence. Thus, the corresponding actual RESULTS are --; 1) = Ignore the public who put you in office until you need their vote at election time, — 2) = Toe the “Political Party Doctrine” Line so the boat does NOT waver from its “pre determined” course that aims to retain Power at any Level OR Cost. — 3) = Keep the Globalists Agendas in tact so “Financial Flow” & the Triple AAA Rating continue to service these Agendas “WITHOUT” the interference of the General Public.

This being the case -; Is it No Wonder that the average Bill thru parliament for Public Benefit takes well over a year BUT a positive “increase” for Politicians can be measured in a time frame of mere Weeks. This point alone should raise the Public contempt measure to excruciating heights that DEMAND Retribution BUT how many citizens actually connect the dots of these excessive Distortions ?? They are fooled into acceptance by two main points -; A) = Complaints leveled at Politicians regarding “THEIR” Entitlements are consistently explained as -; “Within the Rules” as set down by Government —B) = Politicians “INCREASED” Benefits are considered as Fair compensation “In-Line” with Community Expectations that are approved by the Relative body who is “Independent” from Government.

However, should Rolling out the so called “Pub Test” as an acceptance of measure for justification be continually accepted in light of the continual “INCREASE” in Political Distortions & Corruption OR should there be an Holistic Relevance Test that links ALL Politicians & Government capacity to a National PLUS Citizen BENEFIT Test. ??

See = http://politicaldistortions.blogspot.com.au/

Citizenship Criteria also has several other aspects of note applicable that also must be included in any remedy structure.

#QUESTION = What are the components of Legal Status for standing as a Politician PLUS What should happen to Politicians Salaries, Perks, Spending who are declared persona non gratta ??

History records that Voting Positions of “Senators without Title” still stand as record of action. Whether the prerogative of government & parliament is responsible for the Parliamentary Fiscal payments made to disqualified Members/Senators is applicable or not = should the position of determinant Law be mounted in a non challenging environment at either Constitutional Level or High Court Judgement ?? One would think that the ambiguity of substance should be cleared without a “bandaid” mentality but unfortunately this position is mute. To have remedy at one level for Politicians & another level for those who challenge the status quo, is nothing short of Deliberate Distortion by the Political elites. Whether the general Public continue to be swayed with Apathy or not should be everyone’s concern, however, one must ask -;

#QUESTION = Should the Issue of “DELIBERATE” Political Distortion be allowed to continue ??

Any reasonable thought process would conclude that “uncertainty” should be eliminated from process, especially in the eyes & actions of those who Represent the Public but this apparently is NOT the case. As Bob Bennett has pointed out in his Parliamentary Library paper Candidates, Members and the Constitution, there is clear evidence that the effects of section 44 are NOT generally those that were intended.

One could conclude that this issue is rare in 2017, & thus any potential remedy would be at the cusp of political framework but one would be wrong. From 1980 (37 years ago) the Senate referred constitutional qualification and disqualification issues to its Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. “The Recommendations were ignored”.

The Australian Democrats have in their endeavours on four separate occasions (1985, 1989, 1992, 2000) proposed bills to address the perceived limitations of section 44, but None has been fully debated”.

“ The Constitutional Commission also considered this very issue in the late 1980s. It recommended extensive reform of the qualification & disqualification provisions of the Constitution (see Chapter 4 of Volume One) On 9 December 1997, the Government accepted the major recommendations of the Committee in principle, stating that -; “it accepts that constitutional and legislative action is the only realistic way in which to overcome these shortcomings [of section 44]. Given adequate support for a suitable proposal, the government would be disposed to put the constitutional issue to a referendum at an appropriate time

There has been NO such formal consideration of this issue since the government made its response

The Issue is of interest & Need to All Australians, due at least to the Distortions of Challenge BUT Given such flagrant abuse of Power AGAINST the National Interest by Politicians & Political Parties, one must consider whether their actions are to Hide the Real Truth of the matter & if so what the Public response should be.

#QUESTION = WHY do Successive Federal Governments NOT want to Address this Issue ??

#QUESTION = What is being Hidden from Australian Public View ??

#QUESTION = Will a Change to Section 44 “Limit” the ability of potential pool of candidates to stand for a particular Party ??

#QUESTION = Is this Issue REALLY about Constitutional Reform OR Political Party Dominance via Absolute Power for benefit of Foreign Mandates ??

#YouDecide

I am Alyn Roule

discussing -; “JUSTIFIED Ignorance — OR — Political CORRUPTION ??

And this is the -; Roule Report

,,,

RouleResponse
Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade