tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post223831231902195434..comments2024-02-11T19:28:27.997+11:00Comments on Personal Reflections: Section 44 of the Australian Constitution - clouded issues with a dash of moral bigotry Jim Belshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-27919598907247369422017-11-01T18:49:27.136+11:002017-11-01T18:49:27.136+11:00marcellous, pissing comment not directed to you. W...marcellous, pissing comment not directed to you. Was a side-alley invited by Jim's 'travesty' comment, which I thought way over the top. <br /><br />And yes, I have a weird mind-subject-connection problem: 'pissing into the wind' is a very old sailing term, related to the futility of impossible expectations.<br /><br />And when it ceases to amuse me, I will accept a suitable correction regime. Perhaps a blue pill :)<br /><br />kvdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-27835937249870577902017-11-01T18:20:37.066+11:002017-11-01T18:20:37.066+11:00kvd
yes, probably my response should have been ad...kvd<br /><br />yes, probably my response should have been addressed to you at least in part.<br /><br />I'm now trying to work out where the pissing comes into it. Last reference of that sort on this blog was to wind in a different sense.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-29980741292785175082017-11-01T16:29:37.947+11:002017-11-01T16:29:37.947+11:00Thank you marcellous - your comment was not direct...Thank you marcellous - your comment was not directed to me, but I'm taking it as a reasoned response to my query.<br /><br />There's always a problem with trying to incorporate as much as possible into as short a space (so as to not 'hog' space or replies) on Jim's blog. Thus 'true blue' was/is shorthand for something which I actually think is quite important; and also why I agree with your prediction that enthusiasm for constitutional change (for this, and for head of state, and for 'indigenous recognition' - whatever that means) is pretty much non-existent.<br /><br />So, I'm thinking that while it's always fun to rail against the wind, and be 'distraught' (or was it 'travesty'?) about particular cases, it's pretty much inevitable in our present society that it is usually best to piss downwind - if pissing is your best/only response.<br /><br />So, we go forward with what we have, and being fairly conservative, I'm encouraged by that - and not in the least alarum'd :)<br /><br />kvdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-48674112015433460612017-11-01T14:45:28.389+11:002017-11-01T14:45:28.389+11:00Jim
On the thing you are prompting me to comment ...Jim<br /><br />On the thing you are prompting me to comment on. I agree that the question could go right back to Chris Watson and King O'Malley.<br /><br />The requirement for a decision to be made by a minister is imposed by legislation so legislation could be made to validate retrospectively (or to remove any doubt as to the validity of) decisions made by someone who turns out not to have been entitled to be a minister. Not that there are all that many decisions actually made by ministers individually, and the number of decisions by CW and KO'M capable of challenge by now must be even fewer.<br /><br />I personally think being an Oz citizen should be true-blue enough to stand for election and to be elected. The problem is that the constitution itself envisaged that you could be positively qualified to stand (as originally provided for under the constitution and since by legislation which includes the Oz cit requirement) yet also be disqualified by the foreign allegiance or other disqualifications under the constitution.<br /><br />The thing is, there is a work-around and while it is imperfect (because it depends on people realising there is something which needs to be worked around and because there are some grey points about how hard you must disclaim your foreign citizenship) it takes the wind out of the sails of any impetus to amend the constitution - which is always difficult, especially given the prevailing view, as expressed by kvd, that representatives should be "true blue." <br /><br />BJ himself said when this first came up for the Greens that he doubted there was appetite for any constitutional amendment. You might recall that at the time his response, compared to Turnbull's, seemed very measured, though in hindsight that surely is because he was aware of Cavanan's problem at least and quite probably also his own.<br /><br /><br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-36924230892137854252017-11-01T08:08:45.998+11:002017-11-01T08:08:45.998+11:00I will leave it to marcellous to comment, kvd. The...I will leave it to marcellous to comment, kvd. The issues you raise have been canvassed to some degree in the context of Joyce/Nash decisions.<br /><br />I guess it comes back to the question of what what you mean by true blue. As details emerged, the Parry case made me increasingly uncomfortable. Unlike the others, he took no action even privately to clarify his position. It may have been embarrassing for a man who has made much of his dinki-di true blue ancestry going back to the first European settlement via his mother's side, but still. He has blind-sided his colleagues and indeed the whole Parliament. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-58979841744476932242017-11-01T02:09:30.938+11:002017-11-01T02:09:30.938+11:00Jim, you say it's a little demeaning that this...Jim, you say it's a little demeaning that this exercise must be gone through, and I sort of agree - except, surely it is not unreasonable to expect our representatives to be 'true blues'? And this last Parry disclosure seems a little belated, given he must have known where his father was born; it is a detail on every birth certificate I've ever seen.<br /><br />But there's a wider issue which interests me that perhaps marcellous could throw some light on: the suggestion that ministerial rulings/actions taken by the now disqualified persons are invalidated would, if correct, surely apply not only to our present parliament, but also to all past parliaments stretching back to federation?<br /><br />I'm not suggesting we waste further time and resource on pursuing it, but this possibility doesn't appear to have been raised as yet.<br /><br />kvd Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-53297575849881088912017-10-31T23:12:48.741+11:002017-10-31T23:12:48.741+11:00WintonWintonJim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-37552181169761189822017-10-31T23:12:32.297+11:002017-10-31T23:12:32.297+11:00Laughs. Perhaps so, WinotnLaughs. Perhaps so, WinotnJim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-22079519399601096602017-10-31T19:26:38.838+11:002017-10-31T19:26:38.838+11:00Jim, I have been wondering whether it might be app...Jim, I have been wondering whether it might be appropriate to suggest that the National Party should now be re-badged as the International Party..Winton Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.com