Liberal MPs are currently split on how to move forward on the reforms, with some pushing for an expensive postal public vote while others favour a more fiscally appropriate parliamentary vote. 

While Mr Taylor may have towed the party line on this issue from day one, he has been wildly out of touch with his constituents. 

In 2015 more than 1300 people across Hume signed a petition calling on their MP to advocate for a free parliamentary vote or even cross the floor if need be.

In addition, more than 30 local businesses also pushed for equality. 

Every scientific poll that has been conducted in the recent memory has found an overwhelming level of support for reform. In fact, a recent Galaxy poll even found a majority of Christians are pro-same-sex marriage. 

More than 22 other countries have already passed reforms that afford gay, lesbian and trans couples the exact same legal rights and protections as any other couple. 

The argument for equality is simple: your sexuality should not determine your status under civil law.

Love is love. The only way to arrive at the conclusion that homosexual love is less than heterosexual love, one must start with the assumption that homosexuals are somehow lesser than straight people.

This assertion is inescapable. 

If our MP believes there is a legitimate argument against reform he should publicly voice it.

If not, he has no choice but to fulfil his obligation and advocate for the rights of all of his constituents.

I received and read the latest Goulburn Electorate News from Ms Goward. It includes a copy of a letter to us residents, signed by Ms Goward.

In the letter she espouses the increase in, and size of, the NSW Budget surpluses from 2016-17 to 2010-21.

But she omits important information for us voters.

She omits to tell us that the government is now gouging state-owned corporations, by doubling the “dividend” payable to the government.

The changes have been described as unsustainable and irresponsible. They will increase the cost of these corporations’ debt payments, costs which will likely be passed on to consumers.

She omits to tell us that the budget surpluses of $8 billion over the next four years, could well cost the state (us voters) up to $10.8 billion in lost GST revenue.

That is, the people of NSW will be nearly $2.8 billion worse off because of the government’s quest for headline surpluses.

Readers will make their own judgments about why this information was omitted.

As always, the most important thing is what politicians don’t tell us. Voters beware!

Whilst some Australians born overseas may never consider themselves to be a citizen of their birth country, knowing that a requirement of the Australian constitution is that you cannot be a dual citizen, would it not make sense to check and obtain written confirmation of your status before standing for the federal parliament? This was the fault of Senators Ludlam and Walters and so many before them who were never challenged.

As far as Senator Canavan is concerned, it is difficult to comprehend a government issuing citizenship status to an adult who never applied on his own behalf and who did not sign any documentation. Even more difficult to comprehend is a mother who, on receiving advice that her application on behalf of her son was successful, never said anything to him.

The fact is, the matter of members of parliament holding dual nationality is one often raised by individuals but never taken seriously by the politicians.

Where the Australian constitution is concerned section 44 is quite clear:

“Any person who... is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights and privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power …. shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.”

Politicians and commentators are saying that the section is too strict, that Australia is a multicultural nation and that the constitution should be amended to reflect that.

However, the reason why this clause was specifically inserted into the federal constitution whilst not being in any of the state constitutions is that the federal constitution gave specific powers to the federal parliament to handle matters of foreign affairs and defence.

The potential threats when the constitution came into being were from Russia and Germany and it simply would not do to have Russian and German citizens in parliament.

In 2017 the threats to our national security are different, but no less real. Commentators may say that Canada and New Zealand do not pose a threat, which is true, but they do have differing interests to Australia.

This is why, although the Queen is sovereign of 15 other countries, our constitution is quite clear that Her Majesty can only accept advice from her Australian ministers.

Accordingly, we do not believe that section 44 should be amended as it serves a real purpose.