Pen pushers

I read a quote from Kate Hulett in the Herald of Saturday April 5, in which shenreferred to her need to renounce British Citizenship as “some silly paperwork nonsense”.

If Kate really wishes to represent her community, she will need to come to terms with the fact that government, our laws and constitution consists of paperwork. 

She will need to knuckle down to the minutiae of paperwork nonsense called contracts, particularly those which refer to the Kimberley, which is her main interest.

These contracts will have long legal terms and conditions which set out the huge potential damage to those who break them.

I really encourage enthusiastic involvement in politics and sympathise with her situation and ideas, but she needs to show she is prepared to cope with the current problem and obey our Constitution or she will find she has wasted huge amounts of time and money – this will shadow any future effort she may make to represent the community.

The constitution, I believe enshrines a great ideal.

All federal government representatives must owe their allegiance to Australia alone. 

While understanding the pain this may cause dual citizens it ensures the person has made the effort and their allegiance to Australia, given birth or at the citizenship ceremony, is undoubted.

Gillian Nicholas
Beaconsfield

Birthday treat

APROPOS the article regarding the citizenship of Kate Hulett (“Hulett in desperate race to renounce British citizenship,” Herald, April 5), many people may be unaware that a child who is the first generation born abroad of a British parent, automatically has British nationality.   

The same may well apply to children born here to parents of other nationalities; I am not sufficiently informed to comment on that.  

Is there not a case to be made for people in the situation of Kate Hulett, wishing to run for Parliament, to have their dual citizenship overlooked in certain circumstances?

Surely, it would be more fair to exclude a candidate only if he or she had actively sought to acquire the citizenship another country?

As was rightly said, we are a nation of immigrants, so perhaps the criteria should allow for someone born in this country to be eligible, regardless of where their parents were born.

It would not surprise me in the slightest if, in the event of an investigation being conducted, it was determined that there are “ineligible” people sitting in Parliament right now – not because they were dishonest, but because they had no idea.

Citizenship laws, of course, vary from country to country and are a bit of a minefield. 

Certainly, not everyone is au fait with their own situation.

There could quite conceivably be MPs today who are eligible to reside in, or hold the passport of another country, but are totally unaware of it.

Surely, where one is born should be the criteria, not where one’s parents originated.

It is a complex issue, given the myriad nationalities of people who now regard themselves  as Australian – and one size may well not fit all.   

If Kate Hulett was born in Australia, grew up and was educated here, has never sought to travel on a UK passport and has never been domiciled there – potentially, never even visited Britain – why should she be excluded from running for Parliament?

One has no say in where one’s parents were born. It really does not make sense, does it?  

Sheila Robbshaw
Leeming