Should Poms be denied the vote?
What with 'Utegate' and its ongoing aftermath (does anyone agree, by the way, that journalists should contribute to a kind of suffix swear box every time they attach 'gate' to a scandal?), it's been easy to miss what is incontrovertibly the really big story to emerge from Canberra this week: the attempt to strip my fellow compatriots of the vote in Australian federal elections.
It's a little-known electoral fact (and this isn't a fake blog, I promise you) but British subjects resident in Australian prior to 1984 can still vote in federal elections - along, by the way, with the citizens of 48 Commonwealth and former Commonwealth countries whose names were on the electoral roll before the laws were changed. No other non-citizens of Australia enjoy this privilege.
It's a not insignificant number of voters: 162,928 to be precise. And their geographic distribution makes them even more influential.
There are eight parliamentary constituencies that harbour more than 2,500 non-Australian noters. A further 62 have more than a 1,000. Put another way, voters with a 'British subject' notation on the electoral roll are a significant presence in almost half of Australia's 150 parliamentary constituencies.
In a close election, resident Poms who have never taken up Australian citizenship could feasibly exert a disproportionate influence on the outcome.
Now the Labor MP Daryl Melham wants to end this fancy franchise. He's the chairman of a parliamentary committee looking into electoral reform, and thinks it is high time to revisit this anomaly.
What's he's proposing is an end to 'British subject' voting by 2014, which will give permanent residents enough time, he reckons, to become fully-fledged citizens and thus retain their right to vote.
'Fair suck of the sav,' he told me from Canberra earlier on (using a colloquial forerunner of Kevin Rudd's famed 'fair shake of the sauce bottle').
'We still love you guys, but not enough for you to keep the right to vote.'
There's been a lot of this kind of constitutional and legal housekeeping since the war.
Up until January 26 1949, Australians were British subjects. The word 'British' survived on the front cover of an Australian passport until the late 1960s. It was not until the mid-1980s that Australians lost their right of legal appeal to the Privy Council in the UK. It was not until 1984 that Advance Australia Fair became the national anthem, and replaced 'God Save the Queen.' A Briton with dual citizenship could be a member of the Australian parliament until 1999, when the High Court disqualified citizens of a 'foreign power'.
So is it time to sever yet another of those links with Britain?
PS: There's a very lively thread still underway on 'Utegate' (that's another dollar in suffix box), many of which focus on the unlikeliness of this row. Who would have thought Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull, two of the richest men in parliament, would be arguing over a ute?
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~57~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I assume you're asking the question just to get a rise out of us. Of course ex-pat British citizens shouldn't be able to vote in Australian elections. Put it another way, which citizens of other countries are allowed to vote in British elections?
Thank you for an interesting list of decaying ties to the country that we used to call 'home' (I remember an old Australian guide to London my grandma had which talked about what to do when you visit 'Home').
Complain about this comment
judgefloyd - citizens of Commonwealth countries, including Australia, are allowed to vote in British elections (and, indeed, stand for office).
Complain about this comment
NorthernEd beat me to it. http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/who_can_register_to_vote.aspx
Complain about this comment
I heard Daryl Melham on ABC Radio National (Radio 4 type station) talking about how unfair it was. Applies to all Commonwealth citizens registered before the said date. Given the white Australia policy having only ended in the previous decade it mostly applied to Brits from the UK. Its not a growing number but a decreasing number of persons. Not sure about his motives. Australia and Britain have a shared history.Perhaps the UK government could look at the visa scheme that allows younger Australians to work in the UK based on their grandparents/historical linkage? - because as Mr Melham said its not fair that one particular group of foreigners has more rights than others!
Complain about this comment
An important thing to know about Australia. Our media has virtually no imagination or originality left. The Sydney Morning Herald, ever since Packer flogged it off to finance his gambling habits/penchants, has become a press release printing outfit less worthy than the Telegraph (which, one must admit, does not lie about what it is - a rag).
To the point: it's funny you should pick up on the -gate suffix, because we were having this conversation just yesterday, but our consternation was not due to the overuse of the suffix but rather that the term 'utegate' is so aesthetically unappealing, that you would have thought that no matter how hackish a journalist, they would have dismissed it as soon as it arose in their cliche addled brains. But no, here we are again, Australia stolidly contributing to its own image as , well, what, who does the town fool urinate on?
Complain about this comment
When is the High court going to disqualify citizens of a foreign power from owning a large Australian media company?
Complain about this comment
Couple of things. Before 1949 everyone in the Commonwealth was a British Subject who happened to live in a particular country and nothing else. Under the UK's British Nationality Act 1948, Canada's Canadian Nationality Act 1948, Australia's ... etc. from January 1949 people gained citizenship of their particular country as well as retaining the status of British Subjects (so people in the UK were now British Citizens and British Subjects, Australians were Australian Citizens and British Subjects - they didn't lose this in 1949). The particular rights such a "British Subject" would have in another commonwealth country varied depedning on the laws of that country, but typically it was easier to migrate. Over time, the term British Subject was replaced in the laws of various countries with the term "Commonwealth Citizen" - in the case of Australia this happened in 1987.
The Australian constitution still allows appeal to the Privy Council with the consent of the High Court of Australia, however the High Court has stated on numerous occasions that it has no intention of ever allowing such an appeal.
The crucial thing about the 1999 case was not that it barred "citizens of foreign powers", that law had existed since 1918, but the 1999 Sue v Hill case was the first one where it was ruled that Britain was now a foreign power. The court didn't give an exact date when it considered Australia to have become independent simply saying that the relationship had evolved to that point some time at least by the mid 80s.
One thing the Australians don't mention is that when they travel abroad, if they get into trouble in a country which doesn't have an Australian Embassy they are advised to seek out the British Embassy, not that of one of their supposedly more important "reginal partners" in the South-West Pacific.
Complain about this comment
As a UK citizen who has spent much time in Australia (and married a Melbourne girl) I do think that the UK is legally much more welcoming to Australians than Australia is to us. My wife and I live in the UK and from day one she has had the right to vote in elections (giving her a sense of belonging, influence and empowerment within our community). In other areas she is also made welcome, she can apply for 'credit' in this country so credit cards, loans and mobile phones are all relatively easy to acquire. When I have lived in Australia many of these have not been available to me, making a settled life a little harder.
There is also the issue of 'Ancestry Visas' where Australians who have a single British grandparent can secure a 5 year visa (at the end of which - if still living in the UK - they can automatically extend). Of course a great deal more Australians have a UK grandparent than vice-versa.
Complain about this comment
judgefloyd - My wife is a Malaysian citizen with permanent resident status in the UK, and she can vote. Also EU citizents can vote in whatever EU country they happen to be living in at the time.
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/citizenship/political/fsj_citizenship_vote_en.htm
Complain about this comment
My guess is that Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan are cursing Mr. Melham right now. Just when they have Malcolm Turnbull on the ropes, Daryl pops his head up and tries to change the subject.
We are talking about a group of people that represents slightly more than 1 percent of voters, and even if they all lived in the same electorate, they still wouldn't vote the same as each other, as Daryl Melham seems to imply.
Many of them have been here for more years than not, pay taxes, obey the law and some even receive British pensions, which they then generously spend in Australia. Their numbers are also falling by the year as many of them arrived in Australia as adults during the 50's and 60's.
Of all the electoral issues that need attending to (like branch stacking by both sides of politics or the influence of corporate cash in election campaigns, to name just two), this is nowhere near the top of the list.
Complain about this comment
There is something wrong with your statement that "A Briton with dual citizenship could be a member of the Australian parliament until 1999, when the High Court disqualified citizens of a 'foreign power'."
It is not possible to renounce British citizenship, and this rule would exclude anyone who has ever held it, which is clearly not the case. In order to stand for parliament in Australia, you must have done 'everything possible' to renounce citizenship of another country - which for Poms, is nothing.
Complain about this comment
I'm a permanent resident in Australia. I find it perfectly reasonable that I can't vote in state or federal elections. I also find it reasonable enough that long-term permanent residents from pre-1984 should gain citizenship if they want to continue to vote.
However, I also think that all rate-payers and tax-payers should have the right to vote in local council elections, regardless of citizenship status.
Complain about this comment
These people have worked and paid taxes in this country since their arrival. Most of them have lived here longer than they have lived in their "Home" countries. Most of them have bought up their families here. As far as I'm concerned, they are Australian citizens with the same rights as anyone else. After all what exactly makes an Australian citizen? I'm sure it's got nothing to do with a peice of paper!
Complain about this comment
@davidthecrane - as a UK citizen living, working and paying taxes in France I am not entitled to vote in national or presidential elections here. My voting franchise is limited to local and European elections.
Complain about this comment
Surely this is all a bit jingoistic? Britain and Australia (and the rest of the old Dominions too) all share a common heritage and honestly, until Britain removes the right of Commonwealth AND Irish citizens too to vote, then I can't see why Australia would want to exclude a cultural, political and social relative/ally's citizens from an historic association such as shared voting rights? I have no problem with Aussies, Canadians, South Africans, Kiwis or Irishmen voting in UK elections.
Can't Australia get over Pom-Bashing?
Complain about this comment
Should it not be a case of, if i pay taxes, live in the community etc, then why should i not be granted some say in how my taxes are spent? Otherwise why should i part with my hard earned money?
This is really only applicable to those with permanent residency status, ie not transients. As such anyone with permanent status, regardless of their citizenship should be granted a vote. I pay tax, ergo i vote on how it's spent.
However the corollary should be, if said person is from the UK, they must relinquish their voting right in the UK.
Why does being a "permanent resident" allow the govt to take money from you but not allow you the right to say how it is spent...and more importantly, how your life is governed.
Having a passport with Australia on it, how does that make it any different from British, but with remains to stay indefinitely in Oz?
Complain about this comment
Voting only refers to British subjects resident in Australia prior to 1984, so it has already ceased. Should it be backdated? Probably yes, the reason being that the Federal Government is responsible for defence and the UK and Australia no longer necessarily follow the same policy (eg Vietnam)
It's really been a relationship in transition and I do think there might have been more thought wrt WW1 and WW2 personnel, given they went to war as British subjects. I don't see reasons for younger generations of Australians to be voting in UK elections
I'm reminded of Ted Smout, the Australian WW1 veteran who became a republican at the age of 101. He had been back to France at age 101 to receive the legion d'honneur, treated with great appreciation there, then returning home through Heathrow - in the aliens queue - his medals set off the security system. He was roughed up and frisked. Sometimes the French just know how things should be done
Regarding appeals to the Privy Council - this was not part of the original draft Constitution voted on by the then Australian electorate, it was added in London in 1900 at Chamberlain's request. So it was never a part of what was otherwise a democratic document for its era
Complain about this comment
@davidthecrane - Malaysia is on the list of countries on the linked page, as are all EU countries.
It seems to be a around third of the worlds population has the potential to vote in UK elections, depending on if they had resident status. But if that were the case, we could barely move let alone vote.
Complain about this comment
To OzzieXPom.
If you do a websearch for "renounce british citizenship" you will get a link to the UK Border Agency page which explains how to renounce British Citizenship. It is possible to renounce citizenship by following this procedure.
It is commonly stated that "renunciations of British citizenship are not valid" because to simply stand in a park somewhere in the US (when taking US citizenship) and state "I hereby renounce my other citizenship" does not meet the standards required under UK law to lose British citizenship. That doesn't mean it's not possible at all.
Complain about this comment
Doesn't this generally only refer to a group of people that emigrated to Australia in the 50's and 60's, consider themselves commonwealth citizens and will probably die off in a few years anyway? Seems like a bit of waste of time to me.
Complain about this comment
Just wondering - you wrote: "it's been easy to miss what is incontrovertibly the really big story to emerge from Canberra this week: the attempt to strip my fellow compatriots of the vote in Australian federal elections."
Now firstly since when has this become a big story and what attempt? No it isn't yet (first I read of it was today on the ABC news website) and there's been no attempt yet, and with all due respect, you answer this yourself with the line -
"Now the Labor MP Daryl Melham wants to end this fancy franchise. He's the chairman of a parliamentary committee looking into electoral reform, and thinks it is high time to revisit this anomaly."
Yes, it seems to me this is just one committee person's opinion presented as 'news'. Nothing has gone before parliament, no legislation has been passed has it?
As to the issue itself, based on the limited info posted as 'news' thus far, I think it is totally offensive to turn to people who have resided in my country, some since the original British subject changes in 1949, and suddenly say 'sorry you're not an Australian citizen you can't vote'. This MP also seems to forget that for some Australians there are still some background family ties, sentiments etc with Britain in the form of parents and/or grandparents.
Also as members of the Commonwealth isn't it nice to have some reciprocal arrangements in place between Australia and Britain regards immigration, work, residency, voting etc?
This is one of the flaws of the labour party - every time they get into govt they start tinkering around the edges with stuff to do with 'breaking ties' and/or becoming a republic. I wish they'd get over it and just focus on the really important issues and running the country.
Complain about this comment
Yes the British should have the right to vote in Australia!
But, so should anyone who is a permanent resident of any nationality. It isn't always necessary to 'equalise downwards' by stripping the rights of those who have them. It is also possible to 'equalise upwards' which I believe would be fair in this case. It allows people to feel more a part of their community, and that they have the same rights as anyone else living in Australia. Which seems to be a problem in Australia, in light of the complaints of Indian students there...
But there might be some reasons why only Australian citizens are eligible to vote... mainly because becoming an Australian citizen takes only 4 years (which is fantastic, and very fair). For the sake of comparison, becoming a British citizen takes (just) a little longer...
For those who have been living and working in the country, to become an Australian citizen, you:
* must have been lawfully resident in Australia for four years (http://www.citizenship.gov.au/applying/application-process/general/eligibility.htm)
However, to become a British citizen, you:
* must have been present in the UK for 6 years in total - 5 years to gain permanent residency and 12 months as a permanent resident (http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/eligibility/naturalisation/).
Not that we should always compare systems with Britain! Australia is independent, mature (and different) enough to make its own decisions. It should compare its systems with a range of others to make sure it is fair and transparent.
PS: I like the way that this blog post outlined Australia's progressive steps away from the UK... Looking at it like that, it seems that the next logical step is a republic!
Complain about this comment
Seems to me to be a distraction from more pressing matters - a solid Aussie trait!
If people have been here for 25 years, then regardless of their citizenship status they are clearly in it for the long term and should be allowed to say how their adopted country is run.
Fair dinkum.
Complain about this comment
Why would anyone live in a democratic stable country for thirty or forty years and not take out citizenship? Why is there a reluctance by these people to commit to Australia?
Complain about this comment
I risk opening a can of worms but this needs to be said. On the face of it of course longtime resident Poms should not lose their right to vote in Australia after all they´ve done for the country. But if you read the article that´s still on the Sydney Morning Herald website, you may notice that the lady quoted as an example has no intention of taking up Australian citizenship because her Britishness is so important to her. In other words she has no desire to assimilate. A bit disappointing really given what some Anglocentric Australians say about different-coloured migrants they accuse of unwillingness to assimilate. Sorry, but to accept that this is OK is tacit approval of racism.
Complain about this comment
Yillki and Disgracefully, these people most likely moved to Australia at a time when what was Australian and what was British were a bit blurred, and so have never felt any need or desire to change their citizenship. Things have obviously changed a lot since that time, but you can't really blame them for feeling this way.
Complain about this comment
Well, if the Australian government proposes to simultaneously drop the requirement to pay taxes, sure, take the vote off British-premanent residents. What's the saying; taxation without representation is tyranny? Or, of course, this stupid idea could be quietly forgotten, as it inevitably will be.
Complain about this comment
rjswales - A good summary, although I think you've overstated the Privy Council/High Court of Australia relationship. It's not just the High Court who would refuse to allow a certificate of appeal, but I would imagine the Privy Council would refuse to hear it. Further from that, in a popular sense I think the outrage of the Australian people would be such that no Australian Government worth its salt would allow a domestic court case to be decided in a foreign country on the other side of the world.
Also, I believe that Australia's diplomatic agreement with Canada offers a mutual assistance clause far more (formally) extensive than anything Australia has with Britain when it comes to consular assistance.
babylacelay - Actually, Australian citizenship is a piece of paper. Well, pieces really. And these papers represent the successful completion of a process that demonstrates due committment to Australia and its people. Of course, if it's all just a 'piece of paper' as you say, then why don't these people just apply for citizenship?
Old Hermit: "Can't Australia get over Pom-Bashing?."
Hehe. Precluding foreigners from voting in the democratic elections of another country is pom-bashing? Good lord, how very sensitive.
gregsparker wrote:
"Seems to me to be a distraction from more pressing matters - a solid Aussie trait!"
I love this argument, I hear it all the time from people who disagree with a government decision or proposal. It's a way of not expressing your opposition to the actual issue per se, but is an argument relating to process intended to derail good ideas. It's an oldie but a goodie, well obliterated by the mere fact of the size of the Australian government bureaucracy and its ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Nice try though.
Yillki -
"Why would anyone live in a democratic stable country for thirty or forty years and not take out citizenship? Why is there a reluctance by these people to commit to Australia?"
BINGO!
Complain about this comment
If nothing else, this thread gave Whitlamite another chance to get on his soap box, something which we must, surely, all be grateful for.
Complain about this comment
The age of nationalism should come to an end - it has only ever brought grief to the world. The European Union is an example of a multi-national future that Australia should look to.
Maybe Australia should reverse its isolationist policies and seek ever closer political ties with the English speaking world, instead of bridge burning.
And I think the time has also come to consider whether nations around the world with largely European populations like Australia should have the right to apply for some category of membership in the European Union. Australia would certainly have British support, even as some Australians still fume that Britain left them in the lurch when she joined. She didn't, Britain simply realised much earlier that she could not go it alone and Australia certainly can't.
In the future, giants like India and China will decide the course of world events, and tiny populations like Australia will be left far behind.
And yes, Australians can vote in British elections. In the UK, it's not an issue. But whether it's Pom bashing or beating up Indians, Australia is heading in the wrong direction.
Complain about this comment
Dear Whitlamite - you dont appear to have ever left our native Aus for any length of time and don't understand what it is to want to appreciate your roots.
As an Aussie who has lived in Britain for over 30 years - a democratic stable county - married to a Pom and with 3 dual nationality kids, I have no intention of becoming a British Citizen. I am proud of my roots - Aussies have great reputations in many fields - not just sport.
I want my kids to appreciate Australia and their family there.
I also want to be able to travel freely back and forth without having to concern myself with visas and the like.
No-one here tries to tell me that I should become a UK citizen and no-one is bothered that I'm not.
It's what I like about this country - you can be yourself and not have to conform to any partcular view.
Complain about this comment
To Whitlamite thank you for your correction re: consular services. It's very hypothetical but if the High Court (ie Ausralia's Supreme Court) did allow an appeal to London, then there is no reason why the Privy Council would refuse to hear it as they still hear appeals from a number of other Commonwealth countries (many of them in the West Indies) who choose to have that arrangement - most controversially recently ruling that death penalty sentences had to be carried out within 5 years or not at all.
Politically speaking, the only possible case I can imagine being sent to London now without raising an outcry would be if there was a dispute about succession to the Australian throne (for example if the prohibition on succession of children born outside wedlock was challenged) then the High Court could conceiveably send it to London to be decided along with many of the parallel cases that such a plaintiff would have filed in the other 15 countries that have the same head of state - in order for the decision to be the same in all the cases.
Complain about this comment
My brother was born in the UK in 1947. He emigrated to Australia and as soon as he could he became an Australian citizen. This is as it should be. It doesn't mean that he does not love his birth country but he realises that he owes his first allegiance to Australia. As the old proverb has it, you cannot serve two masters. I only wish some of the UKs immigrants feel as he did.
Complain about this comment
Stupid Question. No one who is not an Australian citizen should be able to vote. While we're at it, it's time to do away with "dual citizenship". You are either 100% Australian or you're not! You can't be a little bit pregnant.
Complain about this comment
I think this voting issue is more of an anachronism than anything else - it was carried on after the Empire collapsed in an attempt to give the Commonwealth some meaning
Australia's primary interests have been diverging from the UK's for decades, and vice versa. For Australia that has a lot to do with Japan, both Imperial Japan and postwar Japan. Australia's primary defence ties since 1951 have been to the USA after allying in 1941 for the Pacific War rather than UK's focus on the European War. Australia's first independent embassy was set up in the US in 1942 - prior to WW2 Australia did not have a separate foreign policy
The postwar trading agreement between Australia and Japan began in 1957 and since the 1960s Japan became our major trading partner.
So contrary to #30 the evidence suggests Australia was the one seeking and exploring new options outside a decaying Empire
Whitlamite #28 is also correct - if Australians cannot find an Australian consulate overseas then head for ...a Canadian consulate. The 2 countries provide mutual assistance in about 20 overseas countries.
Keep up the soapbox!
Australia's networks - trade, defence, diplomacy - for the last 50 years have been in the Asia Pacific, which for a middle sized power is appropriate. THe UK's since 1972 are in Europe,
That's not enough commonality of interests to be voting in each other's elections
Complain about this comment
Glad I can't vote. politicians over here are much like politicians in the UK....well not quite as bad but they're getting there.
Complain about this comment
judgefloyd ,during our four year residence in Essex my wife and I could not vote in the British elections. We could vote in the European elections because we were commonwealth citizens - why? We could also vote in council elections because we paid our landlord's council rates. This of course is a hangover of the time when Tories ran Britain, as this would never occurr in Australia, as landlords pay their own rates (right on). We in Australia have a unique electoral system as all are required to vote and therefore only Australian citizens should be able to vote. Voting occurrs on Saturday as all can visit the poling booths not like Britain.
Complain about this comment
A human being is a human being. If they live in a place, if they must obey the laws and hear the opinions of politicans, why should they not vote?
This debate raises the issue of whether the right to a political voice is a fundamental human right, or rather the gift of those who use government to define and segregate those who suffer their tenure.
It raises the quality of Australia law to define human rights in the broadest possible terms, and to treat every human being in the society as an equally important part of that demos.
The poms should have the vote. There is no decent argument to deny them the right, and extremely important reasons why they ought to be heard. No taxation without representation, and let not the government define second class human beings by issuing paperwork.
Complain about this comment
No taxation without representation!*
*except where void or prohibited by law.
Complain about this comment
not only should foreigners who can't even be bothered to take up citizenship not be allowed to vote (no brainer that one) but in addition considering race based immigration policies by australia's notoriously anglophille politicians and bureaucrats have allowed more poms into this country than any other on the planet, there's even more here than in the US and Canada combined (mind boggling stuff). Anyone born in the UK because of obviously perceived bias should not be able to vote for the inevitable up and coming (equally no brainer) referendums on this pathetic situation of the country not even having its own flag or head of state. Grow up Oz your future is tied to the asia pacific not to some former mid sized european colonial power located on the other side of the planet.Symbolism is everything.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat wrote:
"A human being is a human being. If they live in a place, if they must obey the laws and hear the opinions of politicians, why should they not vote?"
The answer is simple; they aren't Australian!
They pay taxes because they reside in Australia; they make use of its services; they thrive under its protection. That's why they pay taxes.
If they want the privilege of voting, then let them take out citizenship.
Mere residency in a country doesn't give you all the rights of its lawful citizens.
If a person doesn't want to pay taxes or take out citizenship maybe they should reassess where they live.
"oioioi2" is right when he says that this type of stupid and archaic anomaly makes the whole country look like a vassal state.
Complain about this comment
I bet a large proportion of people who refuse to take out citizenship will be going for England in the Ashes and any other event in which the two countries had a contrary position. If that's where their loyalty lies then that's fine. I don't even have a problem with the Australian Government topping up UK pensioners entitlements because their Government are too cheap to index up their entitlements. These long term foreign visitors should however defer to Australian citizens when it comes to decisions relating to a country to which they have no sworn allegiance. I would find it particularly galling if these UK citizens had the chance to affect a referendum in which Australia was deciding whether it should become a republic. To those thinking citizenship is just a piece of paper they should attend a ceremony on Australia Day. It seems pretty important to those new citizens when they receive their "piece of paper".
Complain about this comment
I am a foreigner in Australia and am not allowed to vote which I find totally reasonable. If I find I want to make Australia my home in the long term I think I should show my commitment by becoming an Australian citizen. And if I can't commit to that, why would Australia invite me to participate in the government of their country?
I think it is the same for these Brits. Either they become Australian, or they lose their vote.
Complain about this comment
When I moved to Australia the fact that I wouldn't be able to vote didn't seem like a big issue - even if it was, it's something that you have to accept as a guest in another country.
That said, the people who this actually affects aren't in the same situation at all. Australia has 'evolved' around them, possibly in ways that they didn't always approve of, given that they never applied for citizenship. It seems a bit harsh to revoke their right at this late stage.
As for all the republicans who appear to be hijacking this issue, it's surely worth remembering that there are plenty of Australians who hold views contrary to your own. Shouting loudly about republics and people being un-Australian won't make them go away.
Whitlamite #28, if you really tried, I'm sure you could sound a little more condescending...in particular:
"I love this argument, I hear it all the time from people who disagree with a government decision or proposal."
The reason you hear it all the time is that it's true. Smaller issues do divert debating time away from others, especially if they're hotly contested. I'm not suggesting that such issues aren't important but there's got to be a question of priority. The UK had a fairly recent example with the decision to ban fox hunting.
Complain about this comment
If Citizenship is not just a piece of paper then how come the female Slovakian tennis player whose name eludes me but who now represents Australia can be awarded citizenship despite not ever having met the formal residence requirement?
Nonetheless she is, according to wjburt, 100 per cent Australian and 'deserves' to be able to vote. Unlike say my mother in law who as a young woman married an Aussie sailor, moved here in the 60s and has raised a family of 4 Australian children with 7 grand children? I think she would be pretty upset if someone said she was not fully assimilated or 'not Australian enough' because she was not a citizen.
Complain about this comment
Here in New Zealand all permanent residents and citizens have the vote and can stand for office, which seems reasonable since everybody here has to pay tax and can benefit from state and local services. Which passport you hold should be completely irrelevant - or should all non-resident/foreign passport holders be able to live tax exempt like a lot of those Russian oligarchs in London can?
Complain about this comment
This is just the process of Australia moving further and further away from the UK its been happening ever since the colonies got self government from the 1850's onwards.
Step by step Australia has become more independent continuing with federation in 1901 so get used to it. Anyway apart from all the British immigrants here and sport, Australia doesn't really have much to do with the UK anymore.
Its inevitable that Australia will do what it wants and not want any foreign power having any reigns on it whatsoever so just accept it. You poms don't own us anymore, so stop whinging.
Complain about this comment
OzNozz, that is the situation for Australia now, and that's fair enough for people moving to Australia today, but this issue refers to people who moved to Australia in the 40's, 50's and 60's, when it wasn't really that independent from the UK, so it's a bit unfair, and a bit childish, to retrospectively change the rules for these people, who have most probably lived in Australia longer than most people commenting have been alive.
No matter how much you, wjburt, wollemi, whitlamite etc try and protest and convince themselves otherwise, Australia's recent history is essentially British, so you're going to have things like this. They will pretty quickly rectify themselves as the older lot die off.
Complain about this comment
Obviously this is for Austalians to decide, not anybody else. There are a few things I would say as a British person watching this debate:
The first one is that most of the arguments for and against citizens-only voting tend to be very general, and in essence that argument has been settled in Australia as non new non-citizens will ever be able to vote. The question is rather, what to do about the declining number of British people who were there before 1984 - whose own Australian/British identity has been evolving and changing at the same time as Australia's. My opinion is that whatever they say about it, people who have been away that long (the woman in SMH since 1950, for example) would hardly recognise Britain if they came back here and would basically get homesick. Such people have also lost the vote in the UK as they have been away for more than 15 years.
It's possibly true that such people could swing a referendum on the republic / flag etc., but the law setting up the referendum could easily exclude them from that only - especially as these people are already marked separately in the electoral register, so that's not an argument relevant to parliamentary elections.
As for defence, regardless of what treaties are signed and cooperation agreements exist, everyone knows that the USA, New Zealand and the UK would not tolerate Australia's being attacked by a nearby country (assuming they weren't facing immininent invasion themselves such as the case of the UK in the 1940s), because of what we describe as "cultural similarity", which if we are honest is a lot about race and language.
One wonders though how long Australia can insist on tourist visas for Brits, not let them vote, etc. without feeding the arguments for reciprocal treatment to be handed to the Australians wanting to come to the UK.
Complain about this comment
#48
'No matter how much you, wjburt, wollemi, whitlamite etc try and protest and convince themselves otherwise, Australia's recent history is essentially British'
Noo need to protest and convince etc, smartlondon, I provided reasons and dates in #35 to the contrary, did you read the post?. Australia and the UK have been diverging since the 1940s.
If you have evidence that 'Australia's recent history is essentially British' then provide it.
Complain about this comment
Quite right Wollemi, I apologise. Mexico's recent history isn't Spanish either, Brazil shares no history with Portugal, and I can't for the life of me work out why there are so many Indonesians in the Netherlands either. Quite right.
Complain about this comment
The honourable member must have been flavouring his saveloy with some amusing mushroom condiment ..... and the Ashes series hasn't even started yet!
Complain about this comment
Sorry Wollemi, on re-reading your posts, it is obvious that we have very different views on what is recent history. To me, being European, 100-200 years ago is recent history, but I guess that's not the case in the younger countries.
Complain about this comment
#49
'As for defence, regardless of what treaties are signed.....'
What if the aggressor was France?
This has already been tested, rjswales, though it was across the Tasman in NZ, a country which many would feel has closer ties to the UK than does Australia. I'm referring to the 1985 Rainbow Warrior bombing in Auckland Harbour ordered by the French Government and carried out by French state agents
The response of France's fellow EEC countries including the UK was mostly..... silence. Certainly no support for NZ. AS a result France was able to institute a trade war against NZ exports, using the EEC as a screen, and NZ was bullied into handing over the 2 imprisoned French state agents or face an economic crisis.
The reality is that the UK's primary focus is Europe, its primary loyalty is to its European allies, even when one engages in state terrorism. As someone said upthread, you can't serve two masters
I'm offline to watch Sam Stosur at Wimbledon. She seems to be losing
Complain about this comment
smartlondon, you will not get any succor from the likes of wollemi and whitlamite. Their "Australia the untouchable" hard line republican viewpoint will not allow them to admit that Australia has any ties to the UK that are worth any of their respect - to the point that they will deny (read, bury their heads in the ground) all such arguements.
What's funny is that they spend so much time on the BBC website trying to convince what must be a predominantly British readership that Australia is a utopian dreamland, above any criticism.
It's funny because they should both be spending a little more time trying to convince the Australian public of their anti-all-things-British republican view point and get the majority of the Australian population behind them - which previous votes have shown that they do not.
Complain about this comment
Wikipedia has an interesting entry on Commonwealth citizens which cover voting rights in the UK and also the Canadian/Australian consular agreement. The UK is responsible for Australian citizens if there is no Canadian or Australian consulate. The link is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_citizen
Complain about this comment
I've read this blog for quite some time, one of the better BBC ones I think.
But they all have an element of, being polite here, eccentrics.
I concur with WWWorker, the sheer one eyed unreason and distorted nationalism is amusing, but get this, us 'Poms' are way less (if at all) vexed by anything to do with Australia than the element here are about us.
But some facts may better illuminate the distortions on this thread.
Yes, since emerging as a superpower after WW2, who is surprised that Australia's (superb) armed forces have greater links there than with the UK.
But citing Vietnam? How was that for Australia?
Ironically, Aussie forces were involved in two other counter insurgency actions in that part of the world, one before Vietnam and another which ended as Vietnam ramped up.
In Malaysia and Borneo.
That happened to be successful campaigns.
More up to date, British forces sent troops as part of the peacekeeping in East Timor in 1999, the closest Western forces got to getting Bin Laden, in Tora Bora in December 2001, was with British and Australian SAS troops, (the US called them off).
These two regiments will have worked together in Iraq and of course now, in Afghanistan.
Indeed, of the non US nations in Afghanistan, aside from some smaller and newer NATO members, it is Commonwealth forces, Australian, NZ, Canadian and the over 8000 man UK contingent, who have provided the mainstay of this effort in actual major combat operations.
It is very common for exchanges to take place between NATO nations, but also it is very common to have exchanges with the Australians.
Recently a doc on the RAF Harriers in Afghanistan had a RAAF exchange pilot as part of the deployment, as well as the aforementioned special forces, ground force exchanges and training are common too.
For those involved, they are going to a service that is very recognisable, the RAF and RAAF are organized along very similar lines, as are the respective armies, the UK, Australian (and New Zealand) SAS regiments interchange a lot.
But enough of all that, the mindset behind the 'Pom Bashers' on here is very odd.
Australia has an extremely positive image here, of course there is plenty of migration between the two, it seems odd to put so much emotional effort into disliking a far away nation who thinks of Australia in the way it does.
10 years ago, most in the UK, who actually followed the news, were quite surprised at the result of the Republic Referendum, not that there would have much reaction if it had gone the other way.
One has to consider maybe it was actually lost by the attitude of some of those involved, not so much at the higher level, more the troops on the ground canvassing.
I mean, being almost obsessively negative for ill defined reasons is very unattractive.
To the issue of this thread, it seems such a petty, pointless idea, almost spiteful, as shown, the UK is far more relaxed about such things.
But I note the (majority) sensible and measured views on this from the Australians here.
Who actually espouse the Australian virtues of fairness.
And citing one bad case of immigration control, is so very desperate.
Since the vast majority of the ANZAC veterans at these events will have had a good experience, as would the British, US and other Commonwealth veterans.
If you judge a nations on how some immigration officials act, a few trips to the US should make you very anti American.
But of course, that would be nonsense.
Complain about this comment
A slow news day, eh? First, the question at hand, which is whether 'British subjects' resident prior to 1984 should keep the right to vote in Australian Federal elections. (By the way, prior to the 1947 Commonwealth conference 'British subjecthood' did grant citizenship rights & obligations. Why else would Menzies have coverted being British prime minister back in '41?)
Personally, I think it would be fairer if law was changed, not out of some anti-Brit feeling but to make it fair. Do all those non-British subjects who were resident in Australia prior to 1984 who haven't taken out citizenship have the right to vote? If you have been resident in Oz since the fifties etc. then it's time to splash the cash, sign up to the cause and become a dual national.
Good 'on ya Whitlamite. I can tell you made some valid points by the way you were patronised by your betters. Of course the heat in this argument goes back a lot further. You just have to look at the preamble to the Australian constitution, no 'We the people...' there.
"Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:...."
Yep, a number of disparate states with sparse history (poor W.A, no wonder they tried to succeed in 1933), held together by a huge Anglo-centricity and an undying love of the Monarchy.
None the less, a lot has changed since 1901; a nation has come of age.
It's ridiculous both to deny the vast cultural inheritance from Britain (with all due respect to all those Australians of non-Anglo/Celtic or indigenous backgrounds) and to spout specious and patronising arguments that all Aussies that question how Australia's relationship with Britain should look, are cross eyed Brit bashing republican ratbags foaming at the mouth.
Oh, and we'll thrash you in the Ashes.
Complain about this comment
O.K. - To vote you must be an Australian Citizen - no one else should qualify. Why all of this hogwash for. Forget the "rules" the pre and post data. Who would want to vote in another nations election, and for that matter if we were British citizen prior this or that where is by EU passport, where is my right to vote in the Commonwealths other countries elections. This is next to bottom of barrel Nick, of course the bottom is anything to do with Dudd.
Complain about this comment
PS The definition of Pom is actually - POHM - Prisoner of Her Majesty. Thats where it comes from. POM is well - who can tell me?
Complain about this comment
Being a resident of Australia for over 9 years, I strongly believe that I should be alowed to vote in Australian elections, considering that I pay my taxes like most other people in this Country(Australia).
Complain about this comment
Of course Non-Australian citizens shouldn't be able to vote in Australian elections. Being a Permanent Resident doesn't make you a citizen. If you want to vote, then apply for citizenship.
Yes Britain may allow non-citizens to vote in their elections but the population is a lot greater so non-citizens votes wouldn't be as big a factor in determining the outcome of results, as they are here in Australia where the population of electorates is a lot smaller. Keeping in mind that in a lot of electorates the margin between the winner and runner up is less than 1,000. If there's 70 electorates (I presume federal electorates) of more than 1,000 non-citizens voting than there's a possible 70 electorates where the candidate the Australian citizens want may not be elected.
Complain about this comment
Well said SmartLondon. Wollemi et al would love to have you believe that the only reason we have a Monarch and not a president as our Head of State, and the Union Jack on our flag, is the result of having Poms living amongst us.
I'm Australian and if and when there is a referendum on the Monarchy, I'll will be voting for Lizzie. Thats for sure.
On the right to vote debate. A friend of mine has lived in WA for 4 years, is from England, works full time in Perth and a member of the Voluntary Fire Service. He donates a lot of his spare time to this, and does not receive a cent. I think he has every right to vote.
Complain about this comment
Well, I was wrong (it happens) about Australians being able to vote in the UK. I still don't think non-citizens should be able to vote here regardless of where they're from.
My wife has worked here for four years and does a lot of voluntary work. But she's from Japan, so unlike AussieLester's deserving friend can't vote no matter how nice she is. If AussieLester's mate was not as nice as described, he'd still be able to vote by virtue of being from the UK (kind of like how the Royal Family get to be heads of state by virtue of being descended from the right German family rather than from any personal merit). I do think there's something in the idea of 'no taxation without representation' being applied to the situation, but that would need to apply to all non-citizens who live and work here, not just the British ones.
Complain about this comment
To judgefloyd 64,
Sorry, you're wrong, AussieLester's friend can't vote because he hasn't been there since 1984 when the process of phasing this out started.
Inequality between a British Subject (remember, this is an old term for a Commonwealth Citizen - so could include New Zealanders, Canadians etc. too) and a Japanese citizen applies to those who have been in Australia since 1984 and have not taken out citizenship.
The whole debate is about whether to continue the process of phasing this out by waiting for this sun-setters to die off, or to do it now by legislation.
Complain about this comment
The debate is about form versus substance.
Should people have political rights because their paperwork says they are a member of the sacred tribe, or because the actual facts on the ground are that they work, they live and they participate in the activities of the tribe. Form (paperwork) versus substance (the facts on the ground).
A few people here have pointed out that it is easy to find "Australians" who have passports because they are sportspeople, and there are a whole lot more who have passports because they are wealthy.
Well, that is what you get when a piece of paper makes a person a citizen. Rich people can buy rights, and those who the government don't approve of do not have rights.
In Latvia now the wrong sort of people have to sit "cultural tests" that are devised by the right sort of people. If they fail, they have no passport, and cannot get social security. Even though they were born in the geographical region! But that country has a long history of giving human rights only to the right humans. The butchered vast numbers of jews, because the jews were untermensch, and not real latvians.
So, be aware of the dangers of allowing governments to define the concept of citizenship. That is allowing a politicians to define who are your mates.
You fellow citizens are the people you work with, who you talk to and share your lives with. They are your mates. They are not the people on the right government list, the first class people who have legal privileges the second and third class people do not have.
Remember people, first they come for the blacks, then they come for the jews. Then they come for you.
Complain about this comment
My family emigrated to Perth in 1988 when I was four years old. I grew up thinking of myself as an Australian, and until my parents went through the application for citizenship around 7 years later, I had no real idea that I wasn't an Aussie. I now have dual nationality and I cherish that. While I live in the UK now, I have always planned to raise my children in WA. I'm pretty much counting down the time until I can go home again.
So I have no idea how someone can live in Aus for so long and not want to take that extra step.
The person who said they had no intention of becoming a British citizen because they are proud of their roots - I can understand your point. I am proud of my roots. I am British and I will stand tall under that banner, I will shout it from the rooftops, and I would never renounce my birthplace. But I will also fight to the death defending Australia. I am Australian, and my heart will always be there.
I completely support the idea of taking the right to vote away from non-citizens. If you aren't willing to take that extra step to show your allegiance to the country you call home, why should you have a say in how it's run?
Complain about this comment
" I grew up thinking of myself as an Australian, and until my parents went through the application for citizenship around 7 years later, I had no real idea that I wasn't an Aussie. I now have dual nationality and I cherish that. .........I completely support the idea of taking the right to vote away from non-citizens. If you aren't willing to take that extra step to show your allegiance to the country you call home, why should you have a say in how it's run?"
OK, so my political party wins power. We are ultra nationalists. I choose to define a citizen as someone who passes my cultural test. As it happens, anybody who has lived in Australia for a period of more than five years without obtaining citizenship FAILS this test. They have their passport stripped from them, and they are put on a public list of "un-australians". Every morning at government schools, children are taught that people with so called "dual citizenships" are traitors to the glorious Australian flag. Anyone who does not desire only one passport is a traitor, and an opportunist who only pretends to love this great country.
All these opinions become law, and you are now an outcast, a non australian, a traitor to the glorious new cultural motherland.
And you yourself are on record as saying "I completely support the idea of taking the right to vote away from non-citizens."
So now you are a non citizen, how do you feel?
If you think this example is far fetched, that just shows your ignorance of world affairs and history. The baltic state of lithuania passed laws recently to deprive people who were born in Lithuania of their nationality if they possessed dual citizenship. Australia only very recently allowed dual citizenship. Such a permission can be repealed with the stroke of a pen.
The great danger of nationalist sentiment is that foolish people thrill to the feeling of belonging, but they no concept of what they belong to. They think they belong to a large group, they think they are part of a huge loving family. They thrill be be included, whilst others are excluded.
And political parties prey on this desire for an emotional thrill, like drug dealers preying on those who seek chemical thrills.
The words ye speak, so shall ye hear, and when you identify with your paper passport more than the flesh and blood person who is declared a non person by government, you have already traded your humanity for membership of a hate group.
Your country is the people, it is not the government.
Complain about this comment
Finally some small semblance of sanity speaks!! Thank you, Democracythreat for stating so clearly what this is all about and for your outstanding deconstruction of Luonnotar's ridiculous "...I will fight to the death defending Australia..." poppycock.
Somebody touched on the subject of nationalism earlier on and how many conflicts have been as a result of blind faith in a flag. Didn't several million Jews die at the hands of Germans "defending their country/culture"?
The bottom line is that your citizenship shouldn't define you. If you live in a country and pay taxes there, then you should be entitled to the vote. Full stop.
Complain about this comment
Intrigued by the 'foreign power' status of the UK. This would seem to suggest that an Australian-born citizen who also has UK nationality would not be able to stand for parliament. Bizarre.
As far as voting goes, I am not the first person to point out that, if Australia barred UK citizens resident in Australia from voting, the UK would be obliged, one hopes, to reciprocate. All seems rather pointless.
Complain about this comment
Could I suggest a (dare I say it good old British) compromise? That the voting arangement represents a historical situation which now seems out-dated but these people are shrinking in number each year and it all seems a bit angry what is being suggested and says more about those advokating it than anyone else. Why not just let the situation exist and not upset these blameless people who have contributed to Australia for many years.
By the way where are all these angry people who contribute to these blogs? As a foreigner in Australia I meet nothing but pleasant people who care very little about these non-issues.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS