Hi Foxy and Shadow,

Now I have had my little bit of frivolity over this nonsense, I must say THIS IS RIDICULOUS. To think here we are in 2017 in Australia, a modern global society, that bears little resemblance to the emerging Australia of 1901, and we are getting our nickers in a knot over what was made into iron clad law, the Constitution, by men who were closer to Arthur Phillip than Malcolm Turnbull. If we can put the petty party politics aside for a moment we have lost two experienced people from the Senate, and are now in danger of losing a third, and given the number of parliamentarians born OS we could lose more. How many ticking time bombs are in our Constitution, which given certain circumstances could blow up in our faces in the future.

Possibly what is need is an on going bipartisan Constitutional Commission to investigate and report, with the ultimate objective of change, where change is necessary.

The paper by John McMillan "CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM IN AUSTRALIA" is most interesting.

http://www.aph.gov.au/~/~/link.aspx?_id=042958A33D7D4CD985246D0974B643AA&_z=z

A bit of history;

The first Federal elections were held over two days, March 29th-30th 1901. 111 men were elected to both houses of parliament, a substantial number foreign born, British mostly. The first assembly was 9th May 1901 in Victoria's Parliament House, Melbourne, this followed a celebration in Melbourne's Exhibition building earlier that day. The Commonwealth of Australia had been declared by a royal proclamation made by Queen Victoria on 17th September 1900, and passed into law by the British Parliament as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, effective 1st January 1901. Which was celebrated with much pomp and ceremony on that date in Centennial Park Sydney.

My question is; How many of those first elected representatives who were foreign born, somewhere between 30 and 40 had renounced their mostly British citizenship in the three months between 1st January 1901 and 29th March 1901? I suspect probably very few if any.

William Morris (Billy) Hughes Australia's longest serving parliamentarian with 52 years service, was born 25th September 1862, Pimlico, England, died 28th October 1952 Sydney Australia. I can find no evidence that Billy renounced his British citizenship in all that time. He may have, but I don't much care. Imagine if Hughes had been outed from Parliament in 1901 for being a Pom, what a loss that would have been to Australia.

Paul1405,

Irrelevancies.

The law exists and the politicians have the choice of explaining desired necessary changes to the public and doing something about it. But so often politicians don't even pretend to do that. They just go ahead with their favoured lobbyists behind closed doors and the next minute, voilà, heaps of tweaks and the whole social landscape changes. So suck it up and never you mind.

Labor's Gillard and her cronies never saw much need to consult with a bovine(sic) public that did not know what was good for them. Along came the changes to de facto (even students sharing digs might have a bureaucrat deeming them to be in a 'relationship'!) and then, much to the chagrin of gays, bureaucrats and courts got to make their 'relationship' decisions for them too!

In this case (s44) the Constitution has some politicians vexed because they might have to consult with the public and worse, some adverts, 'cop this!', or pure spin, might not suffice. Well, whoopey doo!

However there is also the elephant in the room. -Where some politicians and other big wheels may need the reminder that status and contacts (and hey, we all stick together, right?) may not always protect them from scrutiny and allow them to be showing the law and the trusting public the middle finger. That is common enough.

Dear SM,

«MC still has a slim chance in that as an adult his mother should not have been able to apply on his behalf»

With or without his mother, you cannot control the management of other countries.

Since Australia has this S44 and since Australians in general, due to their British heritage, are addicted to following their constitution and laws to the letter like sheep, all that needs to happen is for Zimbabwe to declare the whole world to be their citizens (with a $250,000 payment being the only way to opt out; and voting rights available only for those over 90 who are physically present in Zimbabwe at election-time) and voilà, we got rid of our parliament (and no longer have to pay their salaries)!

Dear Paul,

Thanks for the link and well said.

I totally agree. It is time for this country to get
into the 21st Century. Change is long overdue.
And losing talented Senators because of an archaic
law is beyond absurd as I stated earlier. We need
court action on this situation, and we need it now.

Modernising would require abolishing that Archiac Obstacle to representative government, the Senate.

'Unrepresentative Swil'l according to Keating,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG1khlbqI9k

That would solve the problem of 'Showboats'.

Bob Hawke wanted a maximum of 4 years for a Senator.