The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > The Remarkable Mr Ludlum

The Remarkable Mr Ludlum

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. ...
  12. 35
  13. 36
  14. 37
  15. All
Dear Shadow Minister,

No, I am not advocating anything of the kind that
you suggest. Perhaps you need to read the link I
gave to see exactly what is being criticised and
why, and what should be done about it.

As for criminals being able to stand for office?
You must surely know - restrictions are placed
on the ability of criminals to stand for political
office in this country. Google "Crime and Candidacy -
Parliament of Australia."

As explained earlier - the existing disqualifications
are deficient. The provisions are anachronistic and
inequitable, and should be deleted, or replaced with
legislative provisions which are less rigid and
capable of being updated by the Parliament as and
when appropriate.

But of course it's a Greens Senator we're dealing with.
If it was someone of a different ilk
I imagine that the reactions would be somewhat different
on this discussion. Suddenly we have anti-gun-control law
advocates becoming proponents of the "rule of law".

Gotta laugh.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 17 July 2017 7:24:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

Have you read section 44 which you labelled "vestigial" as you are starting to contradict yourself. First, you say "First in a democracy, any citizen should be eligible to stand for Parliament." next you admit that there are issues that should disqualify someone that is also from section 44 of the Constitution that is trying to prevent conflict of interests with regards to allegiance or financial.

For reference:

"44. Any person who -

(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power: or

(ii.) Is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer: or

(iii.) Is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent: or

(iv.) Holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth: or

(v.) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons:

shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives."

P.S. I also notice your abject silence when a family first MP and a one nation MP were disqualified.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 17 July 2017 7:48:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a member of The Greens all I can say is Scott Ludlum has acted appropriately in resigning his Senate seat. I expect a recount will be ordered by the court, which presumably will see The Greens number three candidate, Jordon Steele-John elected. Jordon has said, he would rather The Greens choose another person to fill the position. Should Jordon win, and then resign the position, Scott Ludlum would be the ideal choice, providing he meets all the legal requirements at that time.

Politics is a rough and tumble affair, Scott has been shown no quarter by his political opponents, nor should he expect it. He will just have to cop it on the chin.
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 18 July 2017 5:41:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

It would also have been appropriate for Numbnuts to resign when he received the FOI 3 years ago.

I suppose the Greens can manipulate the system to reinstate Scott Dudlam, of course following the correct procedure would also require paying back the roughly $2-4m of back pay and entitlements.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 18 July 2017 6:14:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow, your man Turnball's must be most upset that The Mad Monk has produced some supposed Pommy letter showing he renounced his Pommy connection in 1993. Turnball's would have rushed home and exclaimed: "Lucy darling! I have finally got rid of that pain in the arse!" Lucy; "That frightful green chap in the Senate?" Turnball's' "No, Tony the Pommy B!"
Most disappointing.
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 18 July 2017 7:27:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you do not know that you are a dual citizen then you have the brains of a flea.

If you do not know the constitution then you have no right being a politician.

Of course he knew and of course he should pay back every single cent!

Try that sort of rort on with Centrelink and see how far you get!
Posted by moonshine, Tuesday, 18 July 2017 8:18:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. ...
  12. 35
  13. 36
  14. 37
  15. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy