Section 44 (i) of the Australian Constitution is functioning exactly as intended, is our Parliament

With all of the brouhaha commentary taking place around the Parliamentary eligibility issues of s 44(i) of the Constitution, I believe the time has come for me to weigh into this debate as too many commentators are ‘blurring the waters’ leading many Australians away from the REAL problem.

I have had a gut full of the proponents who believe that there should be a referendum to “amend s 44”. I wholly believe no such referendum should take place. I am of the opinion that s 44 (i) is operating perfectly well, the fact that so many current politicians have fallen foul of the law speaks more about them as incompetent people, rather than the provision itself. More tellingly, it is perhaps a good reason why they should not be in the Parliament at all. If someone is wanting to be a “law maker” and is unable to conform to the actual rules which govern their eligibility to do that, frankly, they should not be there.

I will go further, to add that the “spirit” of s 44 (i) is not even being respected by our federal Parliament at all. As I write this article, although s 44 (i) is purposefully aimed at removing any semblance, connection (perceived or real) of “foreign allegiances” in our parliamentarians, the very fact that governments continue to allow foreign companies and individuals to contribute to the political campaigns of the major parties and others all flies in the face of what s 44 (i) is supposed to protect, the national interest.

The High Court unanimously confirmed and reiterated the test as was set down in Sykes and Cleary 25 years earlier. In case you are unclear about those decisions or what the test is, the question of one’s eligibility boils down to two important and very clear questions:

[if !supportLists]a) [endif]Are you a citizen of a foreign nation, or entitled to the citizenship of a foreign nation or considered a citizen of a foreign nation (according to that nation's laws)?

If the answer is yes to any part of that question,

[if !supportLists]b) [endif]What “reasonable (positive) steps” did you take to renounce that citizenship?

If no reasonable steps were taken (or no steps at all, including an inquiry as to your possible entitlement), you are taken to be ineligible.

To see so many parliamentarians fall foul of this law with proponents now advocating a “referendum” I feel as though Australians are being ‘led down the garden path’ … yet again.

This whole issue is just another example of the “manufactured politicians” of the major parties, whose sole aim, is to make up the numbers for the government of the day, ‘ram its legislation’ through the Parliament to please their political donors. Most of these cashed up donors are the types that constantly accompany our PM and Trade Minister abroad to strike “deals” with other nations via what are simply odious “bi-lateral and multi-lateral” agreements branded as “great for the Australian economy”. I beg to differ, and the evidence surrounding these agreements and the WTO provisions which govern them are not, in my opinion, in the national interest at all.

So while we all bicker about the incompetence of members ruled ineligible, (due to their own negligence) the foreign dollars continue to flow into Australia by entities such as Adani, Facebook, mining giant Glencore and other multinationals who park most of their profits in tax-free countries such as Panama, the Cayman Islands or Malta as has been recently exposed in the dump of financial papers from law firm Appleby. Needless to say, all their “losses” are carried by Australia and other host nations with the ‘creative accounting skills’ of big accounting firms such as PWC. Royalty, rock stars and 120 politicians from around the world were exposed in the documents including Bob Mansfield, a former chief executive of Fairfax Media and former chair of Telstra.

Our politicians should be made to wear the logos of their political donors so we all know when they come out to make an announcement, just who this “new initiative” is actually for. Is it any wonder people are more and more cynical of our politics?

The ‘Pied Piper of Point Piper’ (aka Malcolm Turnbull) is the epitome of the “donor cancer” gripping our nation, let's not forget it was Turnbull himself, who, in an unprecedented move “donated” $1.75 Million dollars to the Federal Liberal Party to make up for money that was withheld (under sanction) by the Australian Electoral Commission as being from “ineligible donors” under State laws. Many of these corporate donations I speak about are flowing in from companies which are wholly owned subsidiaries of foreign Governments, including Singapore and China. Imagine the fallout if an Australian government corporation made donations to any political party of a foreign government?

Dear people, don't be fooled by the empty rhetoric calling for “changes to our Constitution” when the changes that are required are in the parliament, barring foreign and corporate donations, neither of which are ‘eligible to vote’ in our system of democracy, and rightfully so.

Challenge your federal member to pledge to outlaw foreign and corporate donations, then you will see where their true allegiances lie.