Perhaps I'm strange, but I would rather a party that was good at having the right ideas, & an ear for what the electors want, than one that is good at organisation & dotting eyes & crossing tees.

It will be a pity if we lose Malcolm Roberts from the senate. He is one of the few politicians who knows & can prove that the Global warming fraud is just a plan of the elites to wind back the living standard of the bulk of the population.

Only a change to a leader who shouts very loudly that climate change is CRAP could get me to vote again for either of them.

Either of the majors that is.

If Roberts goes, the rest of the dual citizens must go too - including Joyce. The High Court has deemed that all cases are the same, and that they will be considering them together. It's unclear why the High Court is involved at all: the Act is as clear as the nose on your face.

Dear ttbn,

The reason the cases are being put before the High Court is because the intended purpose of the provision still counts for something. If the law were always interpreted literally, then all sorts of legal absurdities would eventuate:

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Adler-v-George.php

Then there’s also the fact that the politicians want to save their skin.

"Perhaps I'm strange" I'll agree with that Hassy.

AJ, the problem lies in whether the High Court is to interpret intended purpose as it would apply to those men who wrote the Constitution around 1900 or do. they apply a more liberal. and different, 21st century interpretation. Try to read the mind set of men long dead is a real problem. The easy way out of course is a literal interpretation,
"Were you a foreign citizen?"..."Yes!"..."Out!" end of story, not something acceptable to me.

I favour a Constitutional Commission with the powers to rule on these matters, and with the same authority as a Royal Commission. Including the power to alter as necessary. As a safe guard appointment of commissioners should be for a set term and limited in number. Requiring 3/4 support of parliament for appointment, rulings should also require 3/4 support of commission members before change can take place.

I can see no reason why any court should be interfering in this matter. Section 44 is written in plain English; we should not have activist judges 'interpreting' something that does not need interpreting. All of the dual citizens should be booted out of parliament and by-elections held. The whole thing has cheapened Australian citizenship, and made us look like hicks. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the only people to have done the right thing (although, like the others, they should have known that they were not eligible in the first place) are the two Greens. If the High Court, in its arrogance, decides that any of the other bozos can continue in parliament, we might as well give up all pretence of democracy and let Rafferty make the rules.