Foxy,

"You still haven't answered my question as to what
point you are trying to make about the Change Org
petition..... You can go on whinging about the petition all you
like - I've moved on."

If that's the case why did you remark about my alleged not answering your question?

"What about Eric Abetz, Malcolm Roberts, and Mat Canavan?
And there's probably more to come.

Not a peep"

The Change Org petition was three years ago, surely some Greens saw it and told him?
The point being, Foxy, that he should have checked.
Regarding 'not a peep', just read a few of my posts!!

Paul,

The issue of Mr. Canavan should be relatively easy to resolve.

Option 1, His mum obtained citizenship on his behalf without his knowledge and consent when he was 25. As this requires written consent to apply for citizenship for a person over 18, the application is null and void.

Option 2 Mr. Canavan is lying, and participated in the application, and should be tossed out on his backside.

Foxy,

The issue with Mr. Roberts is that he applied to revoke his citizenship in May 2016 and received written confirmation in Dec 2016. The question is what was his status in July 2016 at the election? If his citizenship was revoked, then there is no issue, if it was not, then the issue is whether he took sufficient action to revoke his citizenship.

With regard Eric Abetz, it is clear that at the 2016 elections that he was not a dual citizen, thus his status as a senator is valid. The only possible implications would be whether he might possibly be required to repay his salary from 96.

With regards dual citizenship, I can see valid reasons why this should be a barrier to being a federal MP, and certainly none sufficient to justify a referendum.

SR.

You keep banging on about Abbott, but the greater risk is that lying weasel Shorten whose populism, half truths and shady union past and connections are the greatest threat.

This Shorten?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGUAqb9xMU0

or perhaps this Shorten?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFELLK8htKM

Want more?

If we're going to point out the flaws of one
party leader then in order for some balance
we need to do the same for the other one as well.

Much has been written about our party leaders.
Malcolm Turnbull is our current Prime Minister.
He gets to do Prime Ministerial things like give
speeches, travel to summits. He sounds dignified
and of course important and he's very good at it.
He is still the same confident, eloquent man we all
fell for.

But there's this uneasy feeling hovering around.
All the things he said he cared about seem to have fallen
away. And this makes one wonder - what is he passionate
about (apart from retaining his position) and what are
his values. Inside, is there anything at all?

Jeff Kennett pointed out -
we shall have to wait and see if either one of them are
prepared to be genuine leaders.

Sad state of affairs indeed.

cont'd ...

Perhaps we should all take another look at other
party choices and reflect more seriously when we
vote as Kennett suggests.

SM, being the legal eagle you claim to be. What section of the Constitution covers the "Mum excuse" and what other section covers the "the Poms were a bit slack" excuse. The Constitution makes no provision for these, or any other excuse. The only consideration under the Constitution is, if you were a foreign citizen the day you were elected YOU ARE OUT! NO IFS OR BUTS!
Ludlum and Waters could have stalled things with a couple of half baked excuses like that pair of conservative snakes are doing now, but they chose to do the honourable thing.