Antony, Wouldn't it turn on the definition of "foreign"? And a "black letter" definition of it at 1901? At federation, when there was no Australian Citizenship, "foreign" meant owing allegiance to other than the Empire Crown. The 1931 Statute of Westminster enshrined this with these Dominions being understood as being "family", not "foreign". Both Menzies and Casey both represented an Australian Electorate but were on CHurchill's War Cabinet with Casey being British Minister in the Far East. Tjhis was "family" allegiance in action. Menzies understood that this this shared Citizewnship amongst these Dominions was inviolable for ever and superior to any local form of citizenship - which at the time now included Australian Citizenship. This shared Dominion Citizenship included all those of "British Descent" from the territory of Great Britail and Ireland which existed from 1801. In Canada in 1867 it included those of French Descent in Lower Canada (Quebec) who gained honorary British subject status in the fornation of the Diminion of Canada. Newfoundland was an original Dominion in 1931 Australia came in in 1901. New Zealand came in with the formation of the Dominion of New Xealand, South Africa came in in 1910 with the formatoon of the Union of South Africa with those of Afrikaner descent, like the French in Canada gained honorary British Subject Atatus. Southern Rhodesia was an honorary Dominion in 1931. This would mean that all those born in a Dominion as defined in 1931 (excluding the Irish Free State who left in 1948) and are of British or Honorary British descent are "family" and not "foreigh", and if their Honours on the High Court were to be Constitutionally loyal, they would find this way. Thus both Green Senatorrs, Jackie Kelley and others like them from a 1931 Dominion need never have residned on the basis of Citizenship. Hawke's 1986 Act is of doubtful Constitutionsal validity as it seeks to overturn key superior Constitutional "black letter" provisions in the 1901 Constitution. Please Comment, COMMENT: My comment would be to read the judgment in Sue v Hill (1999) where it was ruled that Heather Hill was a foreign subject for not having renounced her British citizenship.

Antony, two things: 1) given the max width of offset printing, will we meed a magnifying glass to read some of the Senate Ballot Papers for some States? 2) How good would an adaptation of the French two-stage presidential system to the Senate be? Would it be logistically feasible/possible? Or would it be a recipe for chaos? First Round - synchronize with the Reps, Second Round - a month later with the top six parties up for final election. COMMENT: Magnifying sheets will be issued in several states. I think there others ways to sort out the large number of Senate nominations from people with little chance of election. These include examining looking at nomination deposits, party registration rules, and bringing back Senate nominators. Perhaps moving away from random allocation of all columns on the ballot paper.

With the proposed move to E-voting, what safeguards are there to prevent the "democracy of the dead" (ie the "cemetery vote") . As well as the rorts exposed by Amy McGrath? COMMENT: Most of Ms McGrath's arguments are about false enrolments and multiple voting. E-voting is just a replacement for paper ballot papers.

What impact do you see Nick Xenophon having in SA? Especially in Sturt? Does Pyne have to really worry? Is Nick likely to get 2 Senate seats in SA this time around? Apropos your comments on The Drum. If he runs outside SA, where do you think this will happen, and if it happens, what impact will it have? COMMENT: The Xenophon teams chances of winning a lower house seat are restricted to South Australia. Whether his party wins seats there depends on what the party polls on first preferences and I don't have a crystal ball.

What do you see will be the Federal political fallout against the Libs / Nats in NSW with the Fit-for-the-Future Council Amalgamations? Would it be enough to change your Federal 2PP results against the Coalition? If so, in which seats? COMMENT: I doubt it will have much impact. Council mergers in Queensland in 2007 had no impact on federal election results even though John Howard legislated to allow local ballots to be conducted (none were).

What would happen in the following Scenario in New England, and how likely is to happen? 1) Tony Windsor nominates 2) GRN either does not stand or directs preferences to Windsor 3) ALP either does not stand or directs preferences to Windsor 4) very few other IND candidates nominate, and those who do direct their preferences to Windsor All to get rid of Barnaby & throw the NAT succession planning into confusion. COMMENT: The result would play out in exactly the same manner as in 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010. The contest would be determined by the first preference race between Windsor and Joyce. If Windsor leads on first preferences he would win. If he is behind but close enough to win on Labor and Green preferences he would win. If he was too far behind to close the gap than Joyce would win. Your scenario is likely if Windsor nominates and I have no idea whether Windsor will nominate or not.

I know that this is speculative - probably highly so, but with this caveat, what would happen under this scenario for Barnaby's seat of New England: A) The Greens endorsed Tony Windsor, and the ALP didn't run a candidate. or B) The Greens ran their own candidate, and both the Greens and the ALP directed their second preferences to Tony Windsor. This is based upon Tony Windsor's anti Shenhua / anti CSG statements. COMMENT: Why are A and B relevant? Windsor never polled less than 45% while winning elections for New England from 2001 and 2010, and polled just as strongly while state MP for Tamworth 1991-2001. Labor never polled above 10% and the Greens never above 5% in that period. He hardly needed their preferences.

If we were to have an early Election in March - as some are currently speculating, would that not make the time-gap between the publishing of the maps (presumably in late Feb), and the calling of writs too close to be logistically do-able? COMMENT: Yes, it would be logistically very very difficult. A March election is just gossip and not likely.

While the Seat of Tamworth appears on paper to be an invulnerable NAT Seat, (30.7%) what of the prospects of a Peter Draper (IND) victory on the back of an anti-CSG campaign? COMMENT: On paper that is not the margin. http://www.abc.net.au/news/nsw-election-2015/guide/tamw/

In the next election, can you see Labor being reduced to 3rd in any Electorate, so that the final 2PP contest will be between GRN & LNP? With the Greens securing ALP preferences to be in this position. Any comments on the Green vote on the Sunshine Coast? COMMENT: It has already happened in Noosa at the last two Queensland elections.

In the QLD Election, what was the 2PP distribution of the Green vote? COMMENT: It's in the article.

Re: 1 Taverner and 2 Berkman Doesn't the first preference have to be a valid vote for second (and subsequent) preference(s) to validly "flow" to other candidates as indicated by the voter? If Taverner was invalidly on the Ballot Paper, pace his bankruptcy, doesn't that mean that the preference-distribution from Taverner is likewise invalid? COMMENT: By your criteria every ballot paper for Taverner instantly becomes informal. The Courts have made it clear in similar cases that the response is to try and preserve the choices of voters.