On the media coverage of the section 44 debacle

Niall Clugston writes:  Re. “Media hounds bay for blood over section 44, to their (and our) detriment“(Monday)

According to Christopher Warren: “Section 44 is fundamentally undemocratic because it restricts who voters can choose to represent them. It was because our forefathers, in the grip of 19th-century nativism, were fearful that voters, left to their own devices, may not always chose MPs of good British stock.”

But this is not what the section says. At the time the Constitution was written, before Australian citizenship existed, a British subject included someone from Hong Kong, India, and South Africa. While it is racist in other aspects, in this case the Constitution is merely trying to ensure that MPs did not have divided loyalties. The section has not operated to exclude people who were not of “good British stock’. On the contrary, it has operated against people with British ancestry who had dual citizenship!

Richard Barlow writes: Re. “Media hounds bay for blood over section 44, to their (and our) detriment“(Monday)

 I disagree with Christopher Warren. Why shouldn’t we insist that our MPs only have allegiance to Australia ? I don’t care where they come from, their ethnicity , religion, whatever, I do care that they renounce the citizenship of other countries if they want to enter Parliament. We can put section 44 to a referendum but if we ask people to be in favour of their elected representatives being able to be dual citizens I think it will be as successful as a National MP completing a nomination form.

On alarming retail figures
 
Keith Binns writes: Re. “Cash-strapped Aussies buying less as wages, retailers languish“(Monday) 

In reference to “Cash-strapped Aussies buying less as wages, retailers languish”, it is a real worry that our so called business leaders still haven’t learnt the basic economic fact, so exquisitely demonstrated during the Work Choices era, that if you screw the workers you screw the economy.