There are quite a few people in the same situation.

Lets look at the facts without any attacking.

Scott Ludlum believed that being naturalised as an
Australian teenager accounted for him being an
Australian. He was not aware that was not enough
and he does take full responsibility for this
mistake.

Under Section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution which
governs eligibility for Parliament, people may be disqualified
from election to either house if they have:
"an acknowledgement to a foreign power, or are a subject
or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a
subject or a citizen of a foreign power."

Surely if an individual believes that their past citizenship
had been renounced through the process of Australian
Naturalisation - that should be taken into account?
Does this not qualify that he has taken "reasonable steps"
to renounce his second citizenship?

Was it not enough that Ludlum renounced any foreign allegiance
during his Australian Naturalisation ceremony?

To prove this point - more recently according to The Guardian
newspaper, the Tasmanian Liberal Senator Eric Abetz faced
a High Court challenge to his eligibility after it emerged that
he still held German citizenship.

Abetz also argued that he had renounced his German citizenship
through the Naturalisation process. The case, launched by
the antiques dealer - John Hawkins was withdrawn and never
reached a hearing before The High Court.

The Guardian also tells us that Derryn Hinch, now a Senator
himself has previously questioned whether Tony Abbott holds
dual British-Australian citizenship. Something Abbott's
office denied.

Earlier this year Labor challenged the eligibility of Lucy
Gighuhi who replaced The Family First Senator Bob Day and
now sits as an Independent. The High Court rejected the
challenge on the basis there was insufficient evidence that
Gichuhi had not renounced her Kenyan citizenship.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

The Guardian tells us that much has changed since 1992.
New Australian citizens are not longer required to
renounce foreign allegiances during citizenship ceremonies,
instead simply declaring their "loyalty" to Australia.

The wording of the Constitution as the Guardian argues
raises complex and difficult questions. For example,
what would happen, if a refugee who had fled political
persecution was required to seek renunciation of past
citizenship from a potentially hostile government?

Or in Ludlum's case, what happens when an individual
maintains they were genuinely oblivious (as Eric Abetz did)
of a former citizenship?

There are thousands of Australian citizens who were too young
to apply for citizenship themselves and were included as
part of their parents Naturalisation process What would
happen to them today if they wanted to run for political
office?

Also what about Australian citizens whose children were born
overseas and were registered with Australian Consulates in
the countries where they were born - do they have dual
citizenships - where do they stand on this?

Changes do need to be made - and as stated earlier -
disqualifications must be flexible to deal with changes and
to remain relevant. Legislation protectors are more
flexible and equitable and can be amended to deal with new
dangers as they emerge.

Another Green has been caught with dual citizenship - Larissa Waters (?), also claiming that she didn't know she was foreign-born!

These Greens stupid as well as crooked!

Greens Larissa Waters has resigned after seeking legal advice that confirmed she too had committed a breach.

There is no doubt then that a law has been broken.

However, the conditions are made very plain in the members handbook, the briefings they receive and the APPLICATION for Senate nomination that was completed.

As the exasperated public would know, there is one law for them and different laws or no law where their political Overlords are concerned.

So what about ordinary members of the public who inadvertently put a foot wrong, stepping on a landmine, where government is concerned, with (say) ATO or Centrelink? There are many other examples that affect the public. And the public usually don't enjoy access to free legal advice on tap.

What particularly galls the public is that it is so often the leftists like the Greens who are laying down rigid rules for everyone else to follow. Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander though.

Oh dear, another one.
What must be done is that all legislation that passed the senate
must be rechecked for voting and those bills either passed or defeated
after, what is it, four senators, disqualified.

Either a voting recount for the senate will have to be done or the
parties involved, as does happen in some circumstances, proposes one
of their members as a replacement.

The recheck of legislation MUST be done or those acts may be open to challenge.

The ban on dual citizenship is proper as we are now experiencing in
other countries moslems are demanding that their sharia law and their
customs must be accepted. eg Such as not recognising the courts, refusing to stand for the judge etc.
We cannot risk having members of parliament with such beliefs.

Dear Bazz,

That is a bit of a worry.
Singling out a particular religion?
I'm not sure that the courts would
allow it. We're supposed to be a secular
state where people can practice what religion
they choose (or not).

Isn't declaring loyalty to Australia enough?