Foxy,

"And losing talented Senators because of an archaic
law is beyond absurd "

We lost the Green Senators because they were too stupid to understand the Constitution, such stupidity has no place in Parliament.

44 (i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power

The sting is in < or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power>

There is no getting around those words or their meaning, entitlement, whether one knows of it or not, exists.
People born in Australia, such as Senator Canavan. are well covered by - or entitled- they do not have to know about the entitlement.

Dear Is Mise,

I don't think that the founders of that law way
back in the 1900s meant for it to have such dire
consequences. Those were different times to the
ones in which we now find ourselves and different
circumstances that could not have been foreseen.
All that is being suggested is that what applied
then may no longer apply now. Laws are not
infallible and we have a right to question them
especially when we are in the process of losing
some good Parliamentarians.

Foxy,

" Laws are not infallible"

True, but the Constitution cannot be changed except by the voters of the country and what's more by those same voters

in a majority of the States.

That is a hard thing to do and not worth the money or the effort for those presently affected.
However it needs changing for those in the future, we should not baulk at a dual citizen of Afghanistan, or Turkey, or Indonesia for example; we could trust them to put Australia first and ignore any cultural or religious affiliation that they may feel for their other nationality.
Porci volaverit.

One of the ironies of the Australia Constitution is, it was men of British citizenship. some born in Australia, some not, who formulated the document in the first instance, and it was the British Parliament that ratified it. Australians as a people were never given that opportunity.
The AC did not give women the right to vote, in 1901 women were ineligible to vote in the first Federal election, and they could not stand for Federal Parliament. That changed in 1902 with the passing of The Commonwealth Franchise Act. Four women contested the 1903 election, none were successful. That did not come about until 1943 when Dorothy Tangney became a Senator for Western Australia, and Enid Lyons was elected to the House of Representatives for the seat of Darwin, which was in Tasmania.

p/s Many of those men involved in drawing up the AC soon found themselves a seat in the first Parliament. So they were mostly politicians. The most influential colonial political figure at that time was the Englishman by birth, Sir Henry Parkes (1815-1896), often referred to as 'The Father of the Australian Constitution'.

Paul,

"One of the ironies of the Australia Constitution is, it was men of British citizenship. some born in Australia, some not, who formulated the document in the first instance, and it was the British Parliament that ratified it. Australians as a people were never given that opportunity. "

What's ironic about that?
All Australians were British subjects at the time and the Australian people were quite happy that their Parliament in Britain had ratified their desires.

31 pages of special pleading for the two 'Showboat' Greens, Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters. Who could not be trusted to comply with very simple and specific rules and a similarly simple application for nomination. Despite being cosseted by all around them and by bureaucrats eager to do their bidding.

Both Ludlam and Waters would have to be the most sanctimonious, egocentric, self-serving, overbearing twerps a member of the public might come across in a month of Sundays. They and the Greens put boot into others, but where it comes to themselves, it is a different story.

How is their form and that of the Greens though? It is all care and no responsibility where they are concerned and when they are caught red-handed, 'Poor me and this shouldn't be happening'. One imagines they will enjoy the protection of the politicians 'boys AND GIRLS club' and will be immune from paying back even a solitary red cent. But that is not enough for them, they want it all to be shooed away and swept under the carpet.

The public is being expected to swallow the spin that makes Ludlam and Waters the 'victims'(sic) somehow and the Constitution and its drafters are 'wrong', misled, even bad and the 'racist card' is even being bandies about.

Talk about hard spin! It presents a perfect example, a case study, for the public, especially young up-coming voters, on how spin works, and the cynicism of those who employ it.

Be aware kids, that spin is also part of the tools, and 'dark arts', employed by any nasty SOB with status and power who sets out to take advantage of others and escape the consequences.