Astounded that anyone can whip up two pages of frothy gossip out of this. Canavan's case will be tested in Court, unlike the Greens who squibbed the opportunity. He is prepared to be examined and held accountable.

However, it would not be the first or last time a helpful parent has taken the initiative to 'help' adult offspring. An embarrassing 30th surprise party anyone? What about some enlarged and framed baby or school photos to impress your friends?

The Greens leader, who has recently become such an expert on Italian tradition has made an observation on Italian mothers, that they 'are always right, never correct them'. That being the case, an initiative construed as helping offspring is easily understood. But the Greens leader would not be accepting the logical extension of his comment. He is partisan.

Usually the multicultural political correctness that is so popular and endemic in the political commentariat would be claiming that as a positive cultural value.
Anything that isn't Australian or from the 'white' UK inheritance is always to be fawned over and genuflected to. Why the difference here? Wrong side? Hence the Kangaroo Court to speculate, prejudge and punish in advance?

Out of respect and fair play, politeness too, Canavan should be allowed some dignity, peace and quiet to prepare himself and to stand before the court. The faux political outrage and speculation can come after. The commentariat has to have a circus to exist.

However, informed comment would be advised by the court's decision and summary of reasons.

Sorry, don't buy the highly implausible argument by the Senator! And almost as believable as the dog ate my homework?

That said, I believe there's a case for constitutional reform via overdue referenda, to reinstall the authors of the constitution intentions. Namely that folks regarded as cosha as bona fide, british citizens, at the inception and application of the document, remain cosha today!

Apart from that, I believe, they and we, would be assisted by an irrevocable bill of rights, which should include, swearing allegiance while formerly accepting Australian citizenship, renders all previous citizenship and allegiance, null and void!

All that prevents it? The brain dead (no, nay, never/never, no more) ideological imperatives of a few hard right, still stuck in the 18th century, conservatives?
Alan B.

If Canavan's statement of fact is accepted ( it must be if he swears to it and his testimony is not refuted) there must be no doubt, surely, that he is entitled to be a Senator.
Anything else would be absurd.

If the Court decided otherwise, North Korea would not need an atomic bomb to defeat Australia. It just has to pass legislation making every Australian MP and senator a citizen of North Korea as from and including date of election. All Australian legislation invalid all taxes paid refundable. Absurd.
The absurdity arises from the multicultural idea that it is possible to owe allegiance to more than one nation at the one time.

It should always be and have been the rule that acceptance of Australian citizenship involved the surrender of all rights as citizens of any other nation and denial of allegiance to any other nation. Surely that is what nationhood is all about.

If a person of serviceable age is a citizen of two nations and war breaks out between those nations he is under the obligation to serve, if called up, in the defence forces of both nations and commits treason to the other nation automatically by doing so.

This mess indicates what happens when people forget the fundamentals of our social structures.

"It should always be and have been the rule that acceptance of Australian citizenship involved the surrender of all rights as citizens of any other nation and denial of allegiance to any other nation. Surely that is what nationhood is all about."

All well and good but what if some other nation does not allow citizenship to be revoked?

What then?

Section 44 of our Constitution is legally clear in any font.

If any Member falls short of Section 44 - they go, pure and simple.

In any election we vote for our party of choice - if any member of any party have not adhered to Section 44 - they go - pure and simple.

Voters are totally over this bs ..... we elect you to govern our Country - as such - we (as voters) have a right to ensure any party or members who get our vote are "legitimate" contenders for said seat.

Section 44 in our Constitution has been around for - how many years?
not a new law.

They treat us as mushrooms - well no longer, and do trust that a "complete audit" will be conducted on both houses of Parliament to ascertain "legitimacy" of any/all members of Parliament.

Ise Mise - you state - "It should always be and have been the rule that acceptance of Australian citizenship involved the surrender of all rights as citizens of any other nation and denial of allegiance to any other nation. Surely that is what nationhood is all about."

All well and good but what if some other nation does not allow citizenship to be revoked?

What then?

Response - Easy - they don't stand for any Electoral seat. All candidates must conform to Section 44 of our Australian Constitution, tough maybe - but that's the law currently within Australian Constitution.