It's not a crock of shit, it's not bullshit, it's not spin, and it's not an attempt to satisfy "the idiotic masses".
The application of Section 44 has always been murky. In 1992, in Sykes vs Cleary, the High Court introduced the concept of "all reasonable steps" test. However, they didn't actually bother to define what "all reasonable steps" actually meant.
Here's a quote from that finding:
http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showbyHandle/1/8812
The ALP's process required potential candidates to identify any possible dual citizenships, and to lodge the required renunciation paperwork before they could nominate for election. The legal advice that the ALP received indicated that this process would satisfy the "all reasonable steps" requirement.
26 years on, we have a completely different High Court membership, and the current set of HC judges have decided that the ALP's process does not satisfy "all reasonable steps". They still haven't defined what "all reasonable steps" actually means - just that Gallagher didn't meet this standard, because she didn't allow sufficient time, in case she needed to provide further information before the renunciation could take effect. The HC still hasn't defined how much time the candidates need to allow, they've just said that Gallagher didn't allow enough. Presumably, candidates will now have to renounce well before the election writs are issue.
That's not bullshit, it's not spin, and it's not an attempt to "satisfy the idiotic masses". They genuinely attempted to meet the requirements of S44 (unlike the Odd Notion idiot and the Coalition members). They went through the procedure, and had legal advice that this was sufficient. The HC disagreed.