"By our estimate, national constitutions have lasted an average of only seventeen years since 1789 [1]. This is an unsettling estimate of life expectancy for a document whose basic function is to express guiding national principles, establish basic rules, and limit the power of government—all of which presuppose constitutional longevity."

Other factors can impact on a countries constitution, like in Afghanistan for example, with United States imposed military action.

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/lifespan-written-constitutions

If I was the employer and decided to start throwing out people, based on racial backgrounds and family links with other countries there would be a strong community outcry against such a move.

Links to rules and filling out forms are not the reasons people are against politicians in Australia having to lose their positions re the constitution. It is simply a loss of respect for politicians in general.

Some have said it is important to restore faith in politics. Well the best way to do that, is to assist people who were democratically elected to the Australian parliament by the Australian people and not have them thrown out because of their history, country of origin or family background.

To take no action on this matter is simply, nothing more than clear racism. For those who have used this matter as a political football, should look at themselves and reflect. They may even find out that they themselves are a dual citizen.

I would argue that a document, like the Australian Constitution that is clearly out of date and a piece of paper that cannot be written without errors, should be withdrawn from Australian society.

Human lives are worth more than that. Including politicians.

What a naive load of bull poop.

ttbn,

<<What a naive load of bull poop.>>

Your comments are right in the context, you have highlighted that many people simply don't want to have an intelligent discussion on this matter.

Many simply don't like politicians. That's it.

Nathan J,

These 'unfortunate' people who have been tossed out of Parliament were too stupid to fill out a simple form correctly and they are paying the price.

Requiring due diligence of anyone, other than those who through birth or accident lack mental competence, is not racism or any other "ism", it's just plain common sense.

I have held evidence of my dual citizenship for over fifty years and during that time and previously to actually getting a foreign passport I was well aware of the ramifications of dual citizenship, I can't ask less of politicians.

I live in the electorate of "The Member for New Zealand" and am looking forward to not giving him my vote.

It's your attitude to the Constitution I find naive, Nathan. It is not "out of date", it is perfectly capable of being interpreted and adapted as time goes by. And, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Section 44, which shows respect for Australian citizenship - something the errant and arrogant pretenders who have now been caught out did not show; either that, or they were too stupid to be in Parliament. As for the tosh about re-writing it: the fools who suggest that are certainly woolly-headed. The cost alone would be horrendous, not to mention the fact they we could not trust today's politicians and bureaucrats with the task.

How many Prime Ministers and Government Ministers have allegiance to foreign power in the form of Rome, the Vatican and the Holy See?

This is how Australia come to sign up to the Unidroit Principles which is all about getting everyone into contract law, private law in particular, with the national government.

Entering into private agreements with the commonwealth govt means people on benefits step outside their protections in the Commonwelath of Australia Constitution.