Robin1942. Definitely not! Obviously you are one of these people who want to change things so you can gain from it. Our forefathers did not sit down and say we want this to be scrapped and changed in a hundred years or so. Just like the bible it is a document to fashion our lives after. It is not time relative. It is worded to guide us for all time. I am disappointed with the changes that have been made over the years. This country is a 'penal' colony, and most of the people in it are from criminal backgrounds, so it's no wonder everyone wants to change it. Well back off, leave it alone, it ain't broken, no matter what some people say. The only reason people want to change or re-write it is because they can't get away with their scumbag agenda under the current constitution.

There have been some remarkably conservative and quite uninformed responses to my article. Just for the record of those who believe I represent the views of inner city, Green thinking, I worked 22 years at Southern Cross University in Lismore, the heart of National Party politics in NSW, where I contributed to the development of that new University for the length of that period. Robin 42 believes that I have a Scumbag agenda for my own gain. What these gains might be is unclear. The author's suspicions are both uninformed and offensive. I retired from SCU in 1999 as an Associate Professor and, as a political scientist, have published three books on these issues since.

The fact of the matter remains that the High Court decision demonstrates that Section 44 meant something quite different in 1901 than what now applies. This is true in particular in respect of MPs of Anglo origin who were then British subjects but after 1949 became Australian citizens while the Brits became foreigners. The High Court "Black Letter" was UNWISE and, moreover, has now had the effect that the Parliament is in amazing turmoil for no good reason at all. Although the High Court has a conservative bias it is quite possible that the decision will result in the fall of the Turnbull Government. No danger to the state followed from the fact that several MPs, mostly unknowingly, had dual citizenship. A far more intelligent, just and pragmatic HC decision would have been to urge the MPs to fix their citizen status and recommend constitutional change as soon as possible. The governance systems of Australia are backward altogether, it is not just the archaic C. I recommend you read Peter Fitzsimmons article in today's Sydney Morning Herald about the progressive policies in New Zealand. The C. has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. A sovereign people can of course, at any time, decide to rewrite their own ground rules. That is the essence of sovereignty.

Klaasvaak, not withstanding all your academic achievements. Considering there were NO Australians (as we know them) back when the constitution was written, I would suggest that they were British citizens and yet they were allowed to serve in the Australian Parliament. Because we have a British head of state, I would suggest that anyone tagged as a British subject, should still be eligible to serve as it was when the constitution was originally enacted. People reject any thoughts about Australia belonging to the Queen of England, and until she decides otherwise Australians would be well advised to stop talking treason by discussing a shift to a republic. A crime, BTW, punishable by death. It is not generally known because these morons called Aussie's will implode if they knew, but; every time we have an election the victor (don't know if anybody noticed) fly's to England to visit the queen. The plebs think it is some kind of gracious gesture on the part of the new PM. HAH! You idiots. He HAS to go there to ASK, yes ASK her permission for him to run this s#!thole. Now , how do you like them apples? Didn't see that coming. So before you all go 'shirt fronting' the Queen, just remember. She 'owns' you and all you possess. Got ya thinkin?