With the debacle over whether certain politicians were allowed to be politicians now decided by the High Court - Houston we have a problem!

"IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE" - This is one of the fundamental tenants on which all laws rely.

A couple of examples :

If you do a U turn at an intersection that is illegal you can't claim "I didn't know the law officer" you will be fined for the breach. It is that simple.

If you wrongly claim moneys from any Government Department especially Centrelink for example you have to pay all the money back, no ifs no buts - Ignorance of the law is no excuse!

You could also be charged with defrauding the Commonwealth, whether you knew what you were doing was wrong or not - Ignorance of the law is no excuse!

So if we are going to ruthlessly apply the law to the poorer people in our society shouldn't the highly paid politicians have to abide by the same rules and obligations?

Shouldn't the politicians who have been collecting large amounts of money and benefits from the Government whilst they were in breach of the constitution have to pay everything back?

Here is what Barnaby said about people who owed Centrelink money!

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/no-apology-from-barnaby-joyce-as-government-doubles-down-on-centrelink-debt-clawback-20170106-gtmzaw.html

So if the little people are forced to pay back these wrongly paid moneys shouldn't Barnaby and other politicians have to do the same thing?

Political parties whom these politicians represent have a whole organisation behind them to check the legal situation of each member.

The little people don't!

Does Australia have separate rules for Politicians than those that apply to the ordinary tax payers who fund them? Do wealthy pollies deserve better treatment than poor Centrelink recipients?

This is a great principle test for our pollies...

Have the debt collection letters been sent out already?...

Just asking

Quote "IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE" In the world as it is you forget money talks louder than almost anything it is only surpassed by knowing secrets that people in authority do not want known publicly.

So nothing will happen.

One thing that should happen is they are ineligible to run again, bet that does not happen as well.

The law and government are not there for the average person, they are for big business and the rich.

Can anyone prove me wrong or put forward arguments to the contrary.

This is not about "ignorance of the law".
It should be about the removal of an antiquated law.

I'm sure that in most cases these people genuinely
did not know they were not Australian citizens.
That particular law is antiquated and should have
been removed decades ago. It served its purpose in
the time in which it existed. It is no longer
relevant today.

No. Our politicians were not "illegally elected,"
utter nonsense. And No, they should not be required
to pay back any money. They did work during their time
in office.

Remove that antiquated law.

Right "illegally elected," maybe should have been "they illegally applied for position they were not elegable to apply for" bit long for heading.

They should have been aware of the citizenship rules.

Simple FACT Ignorance is no excuse.

The point the law is outdated is nothing to do with it as it is the law of the moment and as the court ruled so, politician should have changed it.

The law should be changed.

Please please please New Zealand, won't you discover that you had granted citizenship to both Turnbull & Shorten, years ago. Apparently you can claim anyone you like as a citizen, & we would love to get rid of them.

Surely you could do something right, for a change.

Philip S is pretty much on to it.

GrahamY posted some time back that it is not unreasonably difficult to check and correct before nominating.

Consider the case of getting caught *driving* without a valid license, how long would you be off the road before you could even *apply* to get one? Would you be allowed to drive till your case came up?

A building built by an unregistered (perhaps ineligible) builder would be considered suspect. Even if allowed to stand it would be subjected to rigourous inspection, and more likely demolished.

How about suspect legislation?

Nothing will be repaid. The High Court has dealt with the problem, and there should be no more stupid or shonky people nominating for election. The idiot Turnbull was seen tonight suggesting that S44 should be changed so 'any Australian citizen' should be elegible for parliament.

Bunkum! Any fool who thinks that a dual citizen should be allowed into our political system is an absolute fool who wants Australian citizen cheapened.

What must occur now is an audit of the Opposition to weed out the inevitable dual citizens lying low among those ratbags.

Re changing the law : that would require a change to the Constitution via referendum. It would not get through. There are still enough real Australians to put a stop to such anti-Australian ratbaggery.

This is not a law that should be changed just because a few lazy politicians and their parties weren't good enough managers to do their due diligence on the constitution and their personal standing in relationship to it.

These same people hold positions of great power in our community. What other important things do they miss in the roles that they have chosen to do?

Isn't Barnaby Joyce an accountant? I wonder if he knows tax law as poorly as he knows his obligations under the constitution.

When politicians criticise people getting our money from Centrelink they often use the word entitlement.

These politicians under the constitution were not entitled to run for office, not entitled to be elected, were not entitled to sit in parliament and they weren't entitled to a wage and benefits because they held their positions outside of Australian Law!

Under the law the Government has an obligation to collect any moneys wrongly claimed by people who have acted outside the law.

I'm afraid it is an open and shut case... These people acted outside the law and they need to repay the taxpayers money they wrongfully claimed!

Barnaby himself said ""We make no apology for the fact that we are trying to make sure we are more efficient, have a wider grasp of those who might have received payments in error."

Once again why does the law only apply to Centrelink recipients who wrongfully got money?

Barnaby Joyce is also quoted as saying "that social security recipients who owe the government "are not criminals" but need to settle the debts in the interest of taxpayers."

So what constitutes a debt? Moneys wrongfully paid to or claimed by a person from our Government.

Sorry but this is an open and shut case under Australian Law... and this Government is obligated to collect these moneys or change the law to benefit politicians ONLY retrospectively as well!

Why is it only the little people who have to repay wrongfully paid money? Shouldn't politicians lead by example and be held to higher standards or the same standards at least?

Op 2,

I agree with everything you say, but 'illegal' politicians will not be made to repay any money. Our political system and those in it are rotten to the core, and they are pretty much untouchable.

To work, democracy needs a public capable of thinking, not merely being. Sadly, Australia does not have enough thinkers.

One rule for beetroots and another one for the rest of us.
Nothing less than expected from the worst, most corrupt government in Australia's history.
And they wonder why we hate them!

Why, the state did not lose a dollar because had this or that clown not been elected, another clown would!

Thinking of this, we should elect guinea pigs as politicians: they eat much less than humans and it will be pretty cheap to house them communally in Canberra (even if their whole family is brought with them), so there will be no need to pay them for travel and other perks... and they certainly are not dual citizens!

That's true, Yuyutsu. The 'illegal' politicians cost us the same as Australian-only citizens, and we have to pay for some drones anyway; so, nothing lost really.

Whilst I agree that there was no added cost to the taxpayer, it is an irrelevant argument when you apply the law.

The key points:

Ignorance of the law is no excuse!

Ignorance of a persons position under the law is no excuse.

Under our constitution they were not entitled to run for parliament, they were not entitled to be elected to parliament, they were not entitled to sit in parliament or be paid wages, superannuation and other benefits for sitting in parliament.

The law doesn't work the way you guys are suggesting.

If you apply the no cost argument a person can rob a jewellery store, have guilt and give the jewellery back and the law would no longer apply. This is simply not how laws work!

If a voter misrepresents himself or does anything wrong the penalties are very harsh, yet if a politician breaks the law through citizenship errors there is no ramifications legally except a new election.

Electoral Offences Australia

Fraudulent enrolment or voting offences under the Act include the following:

forging any enrolment or electoral papers, maximum penalty: 10 years imprisonment (Division 144 of the Criminal Code);

unlawfully signing any enrolment or electoral papers, maximum penalty: $1 000 (section 336);

unlawfully witnessing any enrolment or electoral papers: maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months (section 337);

MAKING ANY FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENT IN ANY STATEMENT in any enrolment or electoral papers, maximum penalty: 12 months imprisonment (Division 136 & 137 of the Criminal Code)

Now these rules apply for the poor little voters but surely they also apply to politicians!

Getting elected into parliament when you weren't entitled to even run seems a far worse offence!

Whilst I have been using Barnaby Joyce as an example - afterall was the Deputy Prime Minister - the law of the land applies to all those wrongly elected.

Amazing that I have seen one media outlet raise these issues but they love reporting on politicians who attack little people for getting things wrong with Centrelink and other Government Agencies.

Have the debt collector letters been sent yet?

CORRECTION!

Actually there is an added cost to taxpayers and it runs into the millions!

In all the seats of these politicians we no have to have bi-elections that would never have been necessary if they had complied with the laws of the land.

The no cost argument doesn't apply at all!

Penalties might be applied, though I doubt it. I would prefer to see any effort and expense to go towards rooting out any other dual citizens lurking in our parliament.

Hasn't the High Court previously ruled in a similar case that since the politician performed the functions, the pay and other claimed entitlements were due?

ttbn - The point that if they did not do it someone else would is irrelevant, The issue is they were not entitled to do it and by ticking the box they gained money by deception which is a criminal offense.

leoj - The high court may have ruled they were entitled to it but what about the fact they committed a criminal offense in doing so, ignorance of the law is no excuse. You go out and gain money by deception have it broadcast all over the media and see how long before the police knock at your door. I will bet the police do not even ask them any questions.

Realistically, will there be any punishment handed out, and shouldn't the government be concentrating on looking for more dual citizens? I think the offenders should be drawn and quartered, but I know nothing is going to happen to them.

Yesterday, I emailed the Prime Minister's office asking if the government would audit the Opposition for dual-citizens to turf out. That's all I can do as a private citizen, and I not going to stress out on something I have no control over.

Once again realistically doesn't come into it.

The law is the sole ruling force here.

Politicians are always very tough when it comes to other citizens making errors. They are pretty tough on the poorest people making an error.

Barnaby Joyce looked really worried the other day.

Maybe he realises that he owes the Australian taxpayer huge sums of money and because of what he has said in the past regarding Centrelink and the people who they claim owe us money, now realises that he is in big trouble both legally and financially.

It could also be argued that any rulings made by any Governments that this group of politicians have voted in is now void! They weren't entitled to vote!

Pragmatically speaking maybe any vote that these people voted in that relied on their votes to pass is void - not voiding all other votes that had the numbers without them.

Good old Boofa Turnbull said “qualified to sit in the house and the High Court will so hold”. Did he have legal advice on this, oh hang on isn't he a lawyer himself?...OOPS!

There is no way out of this situation for Boofa and his team... the law needs to be applied to all these politicians without fear or favour that is of course if the law means politicians have nothing to fear and will always be given favour over ordinary citizens.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse and the laws should be applied without fear or favour...

Politicians get away with a lot already afterall. If they overclaim on their expenses or misuse their expenses, unlike other taxopayers they simply get to pay it back. The laws against these false claims are conveniently ignored.

It's time for the average Aussie taxpayer to say enough is enough!

If this was a democracy, then citizens should have been able to elect whomever they want.

This has nothing to do with rights and privileges of candidates, but everything to do with the rights of electors.

The elected's only allegiance should be to their electors.

If the electors so choose, they should be able to send to parliament a non-citizen, a donkey, a monkey, a statue or a little girl, it's nobody else business, unless their representative is liable to eat the other representatives - and if they elect an elephant, then they need to pay out-of-pocket for expanding the parliament building.

WE already send a gaggle of geese and a posse of Turkeys or is that a gang of turkeys or a rafter of turkeys.

The way they gaggle and hang tough on the little people whilst getting away with almost anything means voting birds into parliament at least hasn't done us any good.

It is really scary what they get away with and now this little fiasco they seem to be getting away with a whole lot more.

Obviously there are "No principles in politics"!

Where are the organisations whose mandate is to chase moneys wrongly paid to people by our Government? Where is the accountability of the Politicians and their party organisations?

When will the media catch on to these legal issues and the proper outcomes for the citizens and taxpayers?

I'm agree with 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse'.

And in that I'm calling for Imprisonment, Restitution to Australian Taxpayers, and banned from politics / political lobbying for life and an inquiry into all the laws the voted in support of, given they had no right to be in Parliament, especially look at they voted in support of pro-immigrant and other pro-left causes.

I'm not necessarily denying that Australian voters voted them in, just that they had no right to stand as a candidate in the first place, and I weigh that against the idea that another illegal candidate equally appealing in their own right could have hypothetically stood for the other side at that election.

I told you all already I served 3 days in the watchouse 20 years ago for failing to vote, and I've been fined twice for not voting.

If I have to pay, do community service or be imprisoned, for a minor infraction and a revenue raise for the new government, then they can sure as well pay for a major infraction - deceiving the Australian public - standing in parliament earning top dollars when they had no right to be there or vote as a representative of the Australian people on anything.

12mths mandatory imprisonment should help them to check that box correctly.

Lets put it another way, what if you went to hospital, were operated on by a surgeon who had no right to be there...
What would you think about that?

Remember Democracy is a farce.
It's US and THEM, and theres no balance of power if they make their own rules.
If they make the rules for us, we should make the rules for them.

Absolutely ignorance of the law is no excuse and a person's ignorance of their posirion under the law is no excuse either. It was their obligation and their parties obligation to check and they are clearly in breach of the law.

But what about the people they and their party machines defeated in the elections? Noone thinks about them. They probably spent a lot of their own money in the election, gave a lot of their time in the election and lost to an illegal opponent.

Maybe some of those people might consider suing these people who have been adjudged wrongfully elected via the Supreme court. Surely they deserve some consideration.

And finally what about the voters of the other people whose candidate should have won and missed out through these failings of theses others?

Finally if the others had have been elected what would that have done to the make up of parliament?

There is so much wrong with this and I think charges need to be laid also!

Sorry, but that's a ridiculous statement. I mean, where do you draw the line.

What about a tradie who claims to be qualified, but in reality is not, do we have them repay their earnings?

Or an unlicensed driver who has managed to derive an income from their untruthfulness?

Rather than worry about citizenship for our pollies, I would rather lobby for accountability. I for one think all ministers should have mandatory professional indemnity insurance, where we pay the premium, but they pay any loadings, At least then we might have saved some money for future generations. Stuff up after stuff up yet not one red cent paid back to the tax payer.

As far as stuff ups go, you would go a long way to find a more wasteful period than the Rudd Gillard Rudd era, yet they are sitting pretty for the rest of their lives, at our expense.

This whole citizenship issue is just more political point scoring I'm afraid as their citizenship has no influence on their abilities. Not that many seem to have much in that area I'm afraid.

The modern day polly, in general, suffers from 'all about me' syndrome I'm afraid, and the voters needs/wishes are all but ignored

Sorry Rechtub but your examples bare no relevance to the discussion.

We are talking about claiming and receiving moneys that the politicians werent entitled in that they breached the law of the land by getting elected when they weren't entitled to be elected.'

The Centrelink comparison is the perfect example and so there is no line to draw.

If a person knowingly or unknowingly is overpaid by Centrelink or breaks the law claiming money from Centrelink they face two outcomes. The first is pay back the money and/or if an illegal act happened they can be charged with fraud. Rightly so of course!

So these politicians , (even if they were unaware of their status), were wrongfully elected into parliament and were wrongfully paid salaries and benefits when they were ineligible to receive those moneys due to their citizenship status.

They have been paid Government moneys wrongfully.

They ran for office when they weren't entitled, got elected when they weren't entitled and claimed salaries and benefits when they weren't entitled.

Legally they must pay the moneys back BUT they also should they be charged with a crime against the Commonwealth? The laws are quite specific! Section 44 states -

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:

The media and the politicians are running quiet on the penalty side of this stuff because as usual the politicians are protecting their own.

They all love to talk tough about a poor family or individual being overpaid by Centrelink so the same standards should apply to Politicians wrongfully paid by the Government. Why should different rules apply to poor people and those same rules applied to Pollies.

If a politician is elected by not doing his/her duty of care under the constitution and checking their citizen status then they must be held accountable fully. That accountability includes paying back their debt to the Citizens of Australia..

Today's Herald Sun (31st October 2017) printed the
following letter by Graham Williams which is worth
a read:

"The recent High Court decisions highlight the absurdity of
Section 44 of the Constitution.

What purpose does it have?

While federal politicians with dual citizenship are denied
access to top secret data, that same information crosses
the desks of military personnel, civil servants and
contractors, with the same citizenship status on a daily
basis.

Neither the British parliament nor the US Congress, both of
which served as models for the Australian parliament,
prohibit dual citizens from holding public office.

What would the High Court have decided on the fate of some
of our prime ministers, all of whom were eligible for
parliament on the grounds of the constitutional
requirement that they be subjects of the Queen?

That was deemed sufficient a condition for eligibility, but
the High Court has overturned that ruling.

What would have become of Billy Hughes, our wartime prime
minister, born in London? How about the Scottish-born
Andrew Fisher or the Staffordshire-born Joseph Cook?

What would the High Court have thought of Chris Watson, who
thought he was born in the UK, but was actually born in
Valparaiso, Chile?

Surely, it's time to get rid of this archaic anomaly,
drafted in a bygone era of different standards and
expectations, yet which continues to disrupt the functions
of government".

Hear, Hear!

That's great Foxy! And if the people of Australia decide through a referendum to get rid of that part of Section 44 well and good.

It probably would fail a referendum but put it to the people!

The problem is that isn't the law today and when these law breakers were elected!!

Under the current constitution these people nominated for office when not entitled, won office when not entitled, sat in the parliament when not entitled and received payments and benefits whilst not entitled.

All this crowing for changing this part of Section 44 misses the point entirely.

These ex-members have broken the law. These ex-members have been paid to sit whilst not entitled to sit and not entitled to remuneration based on that ineligibility to sit.

If it was a poor unemployed individual or family that had been paid wrongly by Centrelink the Pollies would be screaming from the rafters.

Suddenly when some of them have been paid wrongly silence is deafening!

Waste money on a referendum OR get politicians to do their due diligence I don't care either way.

As the law stands today they have a debt to pay to Australians... Are you suggesting rules for the poor and separate more relaxed and favourable rules for the Pollies?

Foxy,

I was well aware of the ramifications of dual citizenship under the Constitution, so the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister should have also been so aware; or is it that I'm just smarter than they are?

Of course they should because they admit they have no entitlement to be in Senate and or the Parliament in the first place.

If they were doing their jobs of reviewing bills for consistency with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, they might be able to argue they were actually doing their jobs.

However; they are so incompetent they don’t even know the laws relating to their own eligibility to even sit in the Senate and the Paliament.

How disgraceful is that for christ sake? They have proven to the entire Australian people that they should be laughed right of the parliament and back into the rat hole they came from.

I do not believe that these politicians broke
this archaic law deliberately and I feel that
the law is wrong. Common
sense has to prevail. We should not prohibit
dual citizens from holding public office.
The British parliament doesn't do it neither
does the US Congress. This archaic law was drafted
in a bygone era - it is no longer relevant in
today's Australia. Also, expecting politicians to
pay back their wages and benefits is insane.
They did do their jobs during the entire time.
Common sense has to prevail - even when it comes
to making decisions about our politicians.

It doesn't matter whether they did it deliberately or accidentally ..Ignorance of the law is no excuse... Ignorance of your position under the law likewise is no excuse!

It may well be an archaic law but again that is irrelevant...

It is the law of the land as it stands today and when they illegally entered the political scene as a candidate!

If someone in the real world misuses their expense account they are usually fired. If a politician misuses their expense account they get to pay it back.

See the difference?

If a poor person who is unemployed or a family who is doing it tough does something wrong with Centrelink... no-one says oh the poor things didn't realise that what they did was wrong... They didn't do it deliberately. They say pay back the money! This is how the Government Departments must operate under the law!

Why the difference in standards? Why do the little people always suffer financial consequences of their errors but the Ppoliticians aren't held to the same standard.

Changing this archaic law (your words) now doesn't change the fact that they broke the laws as they are today.

So what are you suggesting? Change the laws via referendum retrospectively and also wipe out the consequences retrospectively but only to the benefit of the politicians?

Good luck with that... It'll never get through.

We need a level playing field and the Politicians caught up in this either knowingly or unknowingly should be treated exactly the same as all Australians!

They owe the Australian Government all of their salaries and other benefits as they weren't entitled under the law to sit in the parliament and they need to be approached to pay them back.

The changing the law argument is a distraction the law needs to be upheld and the people affected need to pay back the moneys like the little people always have to

Dear Foxy,

Yes, common sense should prevail.

The other day I was saying exactly this to you regarding some other matter, but at the time you argued for the law to prevail over common sense. I am glad that you now can see for yourself the cruelty of placing real people "under the law".

The whole of section 44 is idiotic and undemocratic, not just 44(i), because it denies the people of this land the ability to freely choose their own representatives as they wish.

Nay, the whole constitution is an illegitimate tyranny since it was imposed on the actual real people who live in this land without their consent, without even asking them whether they agree to it.

This forum is replete with law-loving and inhumane lawyers, like David Singer, who carry their legalistic arguments ad absurdum.

Let us allow the ex-politicians to retain the salaries for which they worked - that's common sense and the alternative is sheer cruelty. Let us especially do so to show our contempt for this tyrannical and illegitimate constitution.

Dear Yuyutsu,

What we were discussing was the law of the land as applied to
same sex marriage that is a different issue to this
one.

I find it ironic that people are arguing about dual citizenship
regarding our politicians and defending this archaic and
no longer relevant law that was drafted in a bygone era of
different standards and expectations that continues to disrupt
the functions of our government today, while at the same time our
Head of State is British.

I find it ironic that people are so trapped in their ways that they can't seem to understand that the law of the land no matter how archaic in their minds can be waived just because it is archaic.

You could argue the same about many laws.

Once again the politicians had a simple obligation under the law - check your citizenship status! OUCH! That is a tough request.

You check your license don't you? You know you are eligible to drive? How archaic but you still comply!

You get your tax returns in on time don't you? How archaic but you comply!

So what are the penalties if you don't comply? Fines and possibly jail.

These people and their parties failed this simple rule - Check you citizenship position!

Centrelink people have to comply with the rules or pay the money back - How archaic...lol

I find it amazing that people make it easier to be wealthy and a politician and remain harsh on the poor in our society.

Archaic or not the laws are still in force... The Government has an obligation to enforce them as they stand and put it to the people if they seem wrong.

At this very moment these archaic laws are still the law of the land and no matter how old they are and for what reasons they were introduced they apply

In my haste to get away I mistyped the first line of the above post.

It should have read

I find it ironic, that people are so trapped in their ways, that they can't seem to understand that the law of the land, no matter how archaic in their minds, can't be waived just because it is archaic.

And remember Joyce got to the level of Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of his party whilst not eligible for Parliament!

The same laws applied to Centrelink people should be applied to these politicians or else we have a massage injustice to the poor in our society!

Dear Foxy,

«What we were discussing was the law of the land as applied to same sex marriage that is a different issue to this one.»

The question is, how can you cherry-pick, respect the law in some instances but not in others?

Opinionated2 demands that the law should be respected always, overriding common sense and everything else.

OTOH, I say that all laws are illegitimate to begin with and should never be respected.

But you want the cherry-pick which laws to respect: what philosophical grounds can you base this cherry-picking on?

Regarding this specific archaic law about dual citizenship, I believe that what its authors had in mind was to boost nationalism and Australian identity. I oppose that objective, but my views are based on solid philosophical and religious grounds: what are yours based on?

Way back in the 1950s people disregarded some laws with impunity, particularly those in regard to swimwear.
I remember some Uni students decided to test the law regarding swimming in certain parts of Sydney Harbour, they dived in and asked the police to arrest them, result: police laughter and no other action.

Yuyutsu if you can show me where in any laws, even native laws, or religious laws the term "where common sense and everything else dictates ignore these laws and the application of these laws"then I will be most impressed.

Lets take Biblical laws...

It doesn't say "Though shalt not commit adultry unless common sense and everything indicates she is a real hotty so ignore the "though shalt not bit.

Law doesn't work like that!

So much for your solid philospophical and religious grounds...

There is no common sense failure, philosophical or religious failure in my argument...

But Biblical Law covers it

Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets

So if the people who breach Centrelink rules have to pay the money back the politicians who breach the rules should also pay the money back! Their is NO common sense failure in that argument whatsoever!

The Nationals have this in their constitution under objects... and I quote

2.1 The objects of the Party shall be to:

(a) promote within Australia -

(i) a society based on Christian ethics and loyalty to the Crown

So as Barnaby agrees to these rules then he should pay the money back!

The law is the law and common sense doesn't enter into it!

$9 million dollar thieves.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/citizenship-five-paid-nearly-9-million-in-salaries-they-were-not-entitled-to-20171030-gzazka.html

Citizenship five paid nearly $9 million in salaries they were not entitled to

eir citizenship status collected close to $9 million in taxpayer-funded salaries they were not entitled to.

Former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce accounts for $2.8 million of that money and his former Nationals deputy Fiona Nash $2.6 million. Both first entered parliament in 2005 and have benefited from ministerial bonuses since 2013.

Former Greens senators Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters were paid $1.8 million and $1.3 million respectively, and One Nation's Malcolm Roberts collected about $266,000 between the 2016 election and Friday's High Court verdict.

All up, they collected a total of $8,769,509 in base salary and ministerial bonuses. The figure - based on an analysis of MP pay rates and positions held over the last 13 years - does not include committee bonuses or any allowances.

It also does not include any staff or office costs.

And it comes on top of the price tag of the High Court case itself, which has been estimated to have cost taxpayers up to $3 million given the Commonwealth picked up the tab for half a dozen of the nation's top silks and their teams.

However none of the five were eligible for the generous parliamentary defined benefits scheme pension because all were elected after 2004.

Con'T

All five MPs were booted out of Parliament after the court ruled them ineligible because of their dual citizenship. Mr Joyce and Mr Ludlam had New Zealand citizenships, Ms Nash and Mr Roberts British and Ms Waters Canadian.

While the verdict only related to their eligibility at the time of last year's election, all five inherited their dual citizenship status at birth - meaning all were in fact illegitimately elected for the entirety of their federal political careers.

While the Turnbull government could pursue repayment - at least for the roughly $1.3 million paid out since July 2016 - it is unlikely to do so.

While the Department of Finance is likely to write to the dumped MPs with a bill for salaries, allowances, superannuation and staff payments, they can easily apply to the government for a waiver.

Former Family First senator Bob Day did just that earlier this year after he was disqualified for contravening pecuniary interest elements of the constitution.

Special Minister of State Scott Ryan agreed to the waiver, saying it was "consistent with the outcome in previous similar cases".

That approach would only be likely to change if evidence emerged that an MP had deliberately or knowingly defrauded the taxpayer.

Asked on Monday whether the MPs should pay back any money, acting Prime Minister Julie Bishop said: "That would be a matter of advice from the Department of Finance and that would be a matter for the Finance Minister."

All the pensioners etc chased by Centerlink should turn up at Joyces election rally and boo him

Great post Philip S - Thankyou for your input.

The politicians will all now start protecting each other when the debt to our society is clear and due.

The next argument they will bring up is that it may bankrupt some of these politicians who broke the law.

Does Centrelink ever bankrupt people? Does the Department of Finance ever bankrupt people?

SO all the boo hoo arguments for the politicians are crocodile tears justifying a wrong to our nation.

They failed every Australian by not being aware of their own Citizenship status. They made the error and now they should pay the price!

As I pointed out the Nationals have in their objects to follow Christian principles - Let's see them be Christian and do unto others - making Joyce and Nash repay Australia like they do the pensioners and unemployed of this country.

On all grounds they have no leg to stand on!

This is how corrupt these low lifers are.

I am willing to bet if any of them run for re-election and get in when it comes to pension time they will try to use the time they were illegally there to increase there pension entitlement payout.

Quote "The politicians will all now start protecting each other"

No they have been doing it for a long long time, they mostly know each others secrets.

Dear Opinionated2,

You are asking me to show you laws that are not laws?!?

The nature of laws is in their inflexibility and lack of compassion - the very concept of laws is sick, as it is based on the false assumption that we are evil in nature. Laws create an adversarial environment and depend on violence to uphold - we deserve better than that!

Now I do support the concept of guidelines: there are many guidelines in my orchestra, you do not play out of turn, in the wrong place or in the wrong pitch, too loud or too soft, you only start playing when the conductor makes the sign, you don't talk when you have a rest and it is not your turn to play, etc. etc. While the level of discipline is high, nothing is forced on us because we joined the orchestra voluntarily, we love it and are proud of it, we have a common interest and common goals, so obviously we want to do the right thing for our orchestra to succeed.

States are nothing like this because they impose themselves on everyone who happens to live in a particular, typically very large, area, whether they like it or not, whether they share any values in common or otherwise.

Now if you do choose to have laws, a key point is whether one accepts the authority of the law-giver(s). You gave the bible as example: Do you accept God as authority and that the bible was written by Him? If you do but fail some "Thou shalt not", then you consider yourself guilty - otherwise you don't (although you might still possibly feel guilty over your adultery for other reasons).

In contrast, there is no reason whatsoever to feel guilty if you break the state's laws, because they lack authority, because all you have there is a violent gang that uses laws in an attempt to impose its will on others without consent.

(continued...)

(...continued)

Now if you shift the discussion from law to morality, then anyone who ever received Centrelink payments should return them as soon as they can, whether requested to do so or otherwise, whether any law requires it or otherwise. Also, no one, including politicians, should accept money from the state to begin with because all the state can pay them with, is tainted money which they stole or robbed from others. If politicians are elected to advocate for their constituents, then it should be up to the constituents to pay their salary.

I have no clue why you chose to provide Barnaby as an example of morality: this hypocrite spammer claims to love family, yet to forward his own agenda (the 'No' campaign) he sent his robots to harass a million families and interrupt their quality family time.

Dear Philip S.,

We shouldn't be too concerned.
Everything will work out, you'll see.

I always thought that whip-cracking, akubra hat
wearing Barnaby Joyce was "true blue".
But I was wrong.

Imagine that swearing an oath to our British-born
Head of State was not enough. According to our
Constitution.

Apparently poor Barnaby didn't previously formally
renounce his other citizenship.
It appears that
he broke an old law and now according to some, he
needs to be punished and be made an example of.
After all these colonials can't be trusted. The law is
there to protect the realm from "upstarts".
And we still are a British colony or so it seems.
But wait, there's light at
the end of this tunnel. Now,seeing as Barnaby has done
the right thing this time - renouncing what he should have
renounced the first time in, prior to being accepted into
parliament , he is now able to run for re-election
and Barnaby will be able to swear allegiance to our
British born Head of State once again.
And then everything will be "legal".
Although not sure how he'll feel about having to pay back
the money he earned during all of that time.

Maybe they can raise his salary to compensate?
I'm sure something will be worked out. After all the
PM knows the law.

cont'd ...

Here's what Barnaby Joyce feels about the Constitution
Section 44:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-30/barnaby-joyce-wants-referendum-to-change-constitution-section-44/9098594

I only mentione religious laws because your views were based on solid philosophivcal and religious grounds.

The Bible, for your information, for the most part is a load of rubbish written by misguided men many who were psychopaths. To even claim it is the word of God is the greatest insult to God possible!

So of course I only quoted the Do unto others"" bit because it is the golden rule in many cultures and one that is totally ignored by most religions and most cultures...

I would never put Barnaby Joyce as an example of morality. You missed the point!

I was stating that as the nationals state that their party believes in Christian principles then he should comply with those principles and give the money back.

The fact that everything has been stolen in this country from the natives is entirely correct and I would love to be able to fix it.

Under this false Christianity that people claim for follow our forefathers, if we are non-native, whilst claiming to be Christian - coverted the land, stole the land, killed many natives and did exactly not unto others as they would have others do to them.

3 Commandments and the golden rule broken in one little event.

So simply put from the very inception of this country we have claimed one thing and done the total opposite! Maybe we can get these politicians to be honest and honourable on this occasion or will they again fail their Christian religion as usual?

See how politicians distort things in the link from Foxy where Barnaby speaks.

The fact that the New England people he allegedly quotes can't grasp a couple of simple facts seems questionable.

He is a citizen of Australia BUT also a citizen of another country which under section 44 of the Australian constitution makes him ineligible to sit in the Australian parliament.

If people truly thought that he wasn't an Australian citizen then he should have easily corrected them.

The fact that he had difficulty doing so doesn't say much about his skills in verbal communication.

Note he responds with this... "To be quite frank I have a hard time trying to explain that to them."

What's hard about explaining that he is a citizen of Australia but is also a citizen of New Zealnd which means he was illegally elected?

He is just waffling like a politician and the media are wasting our time reporting it.

Perhaps he could have said " Look all my family were born in Tamworth"and then added "and Ï didn't check my eligibility as the Australian constitution is very specific as to whether or not I was eligible to run for parliament. And I wasn't!

"I broke the law as my citizenship status was outside Section 44 of the constitution and I want to pay the Australian people their money back like I have insisted people relying on Centrelink have. I make no apology for insisting on pensioners and unemployed payïng back wrongly paid moneys and I will do the honourable thing and do the same."

Funny how you guys on the change the law bandwagon miss all what he should have said!

Your case is irrelevant because at this point in time and when Barnaby and the others ran and got elected they were in breach of our constitution at that time!

I didn't make the law and I may not agree with it but I know it exists and it is still current and applicable until changed by referendum.

All these change the law raves are simply irrelevant in the current cases.

Foxy,

Thanks for that link, have you got any more funnies like that?

Best laugh I've had this week!!

Barnaby the Dill.

Dear Is Mise,

Thanks for getting it.

Dear Opinionated2,

«I was stating that as the nationals state that their party believes in Christian principles then he should comply with those principles and give the money back.»

Morally speaking, he should - and so should all other politicians and public servants, whether they have dual citizenship or otherwise, especially if they want to be on God's good books, that's the honourable thing to do. Would they claim that upon taking office they were unaware of "Thou shalt not steal"? Or that they were unaware that their salary comes from the proceeds of theft and robbery?

But civilly speaking, the state should not forcibly demand that money back, because if one takes the bible seriously then it is also written: "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning" [Leviticus 19:13]. A new robbery doesn't cancel the previous ones.

«The fact that everything has been stolen in this country from the natives is entirely correct and I would love to be able to fix it.»

Not only from the natives and not only in the past. Government still continues to steal taxes from everyone. While I don't know how to fix the natives' wrongs, the fix for the ongoing theft is to make taxation voluntary.

«Maybe we can get these politicians to be honest and honourable on this occasion»

This is simply not possible. No matter what you do, you just cannot make another person honest or honourable!

«at this point in time and when Barnaby and the others ran and got elected they were in breach of our constitution at that time!»

Yes they were, but why should it matter (unless you respect the constitution, which would be inconsistent after what you just wrote about the treatment of natives)?

Interestingly, perhaps 90% of parliamentarians were in the same position when prior to nomination they failed to vigorously check for other citizenships. Most were just lucky to have none, but a few were not. Are the few less moral than the others?

So how far back is this reclaiming of monies to go 20, 30, 40 years....all because 'the people' were too lazy to safeguard their future...we were UK lap dogs and now we're US lapdogs....we were never our own people...that was just an illusion to be fed to the gullible.
I've heard every excuse one could hear as regards to why Australians could or wouldn't seek self determination.
US citizens are well mannered, well meaning yokels who happen to be ignorant and need to be spoon fed....and Australians can't wait to immitate

Yes ilmessaggio go back as far as we need to to discover how many people were elected wrongly. That is the correct thing to do by the Australian taxpayer!

We have a large national debt so we can't afford to be paying people who failed to comply with their obligations to the taxpayers.

Treat them like any other indebted person and get the money back!

We can't allow two standards again where the politicians get away with law breaking like they have with misclaiming expenses.

Throw the book at all of them.

If they don't that would open the door for a class action from anyone who has had to pay back moneys to the Government and who have been chased and prosecuted for that money to get their money back.

That is why Boofa Turnbull is terrified of a citizenship audit. He knows the problem is huge with massive consequences if things start to get challenged.

These pollies who have been elected against the law are on a fabulous wicket and as they have received all their salaries and perks illegally it needs to be repaid!

Here have a read

http://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/eyewatering-extent-of-pollies-perks-as-doubledipping-scandal-emerges/news-story/9fbdbb5e83cc058beb52979480f410a6

It's time the hard working taxpayer had a win for a change!

For anyone interested:

"When the Australian Constitution was drafted in the
1890s, allegiance was given to the Crown, not to a
territory. We all shared the status of British
subjects, and a person born in Australia could be
elected to parliament in Britain, New Zealand, Canada,
and other places, and vice versa. There was no need
for renunciation or denunciation of allegiance."

The following link explains further:

http://mrbbaskerville.wordpress.com/2017/07/21/ahistorical-history-on-the-run-section-44i-of-the-australian-constitution/

Prof. Bruce Baskerville is an expert on the Australian
Constitution.

and if the above mentioned is so, then the Australian Constitution is another piece of flim flam fed to the unsuspecting Australians to have them believe they were on the path to self determination whereas they were simply confirmed lackeys of the crown who were too ignorant to know otherwise with our leaders and members on both sides of Parliament being too stupid or self serving to correct the matter.

Knighthood anyone?....just look the other way

Foxy,

"Prof. Bruce Baskerville is an expert on the Australian
Constitution"

So are the Judges of the High Court.

Before we change Section 44 we should look at the risks of allowing people having dual citizenship being in our parliament.

Let's use British dual citizenship and history as an example .

We have always stuck by Britain, and yet, why we have seems to me a very relevant question.

After the European theatre of WW2 was over "We will fight them on the beaches, Churchill didn't want our troups to return to Australia to defend OUR country against the Japanese who were waging a ruthless war in our neck of the woods.

He was quite happy to keep the Aussies in Europe and hang the consequences!

http://www.pacificwar.org.au/battaust/Britain_betrays_Australia.html

If it wasn't for Curtin's loyalty to Australia we may have been overrun by Japan... If put to a vote of a parliament full of people with dual citizens, many of whom would have been British dual citizens at the time you "Change the archaic law" people may have been eating Rice and drinking Sake today! It all would depend on whose half of their dual citizenship the parliamentarians put first!

Remember Menzies fawned over the Queen with stomach churning lines from an old poem like "I did but see her passing by and yet I love her till I die." Nauseating!

Yes we really want ALL Australians in our parliament not people with divided loyalties.

Now what did the Brits do with their love of Australia? (Sarcasm) Oh yes that's right Maralinga! Yes ! That's right our beloved British owners performed atomic bomb tests on mainland Australia not giving a dam about Australians or Australian Aborigines.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-27/sixty-years-on-from-the-maralinga-atomic-bomb-tests/7880364

Butt kisser Menzies sold out to Britain once again and we all probably have little glowing atoms of British joy still floating around in our bodies and our children's bodies! Cancer anyone?

I'm not saying Menzies was a dual citizen but what you "Law Changers" might want to think about is how many dual citizens with British heritage might have been in our Parliaments and been in the ear of "Bob the Queen lover's" ear having influence over this pathetic Anglofile!

To be cont...

Continued from above...

And when the Brits abandoned us to join the European Union what then of loyalties to Australia?

And where was the Royals in all of this... Were they defending their Aussie play things saying "No Winston - The Australian soldiers must go home to defend Australia" or ""No Robert we will never use Australia and it's people as nuclear guinea pigs"- You Australians are equals... lmao!

WE need people who will always put Australia first and with dual citizens filling our parliaments we would never know if they were selling us out or not!

All that our potential politicians are being asked to do is be loyal to Australia only by renouncing your dual citizenship... If that is too much to ask then be careful of the future... Their Allegiances may not be to Australia afterall!

Aint history grand!

Yuyutsu,

Civily speaking the Bible is a load of rubbish so why would anyone take it seriously? Moses pretended God spoke to him and forced his evil ways on people by saying "the Lord said". Don't tell me you believe it...

You entirely miss the point regarding this situation and that verse from Leviticus...

"Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning" [Leviticus 19:13]

They weren't wages that the person was entitled to, so taking them back is not a second theft - It is righting the wrong done to us by people who were not entitled to stand for election, not entitled to win the seat, not entitled to sit in parliament and not entitled to draw a salary or the benefits paid to them.

So they put in a bit of their time whilst in breach of the law... Nothing makes your argument reasonable.

They should pay back the moneys and apologise to the taxpayers!

So just to tidy up a few of the points I have made in my last few posts.

The main point about Menzies, and how he was willing to worship royalty and to sell Australia out, is that I'm pretty sure he was an Australian citizen only, and he couldn't be trusted to put Australia and Australians first!

We know that generally speaking a British person would put Britain first. That's entirely understandable!

So with a person in our parliament with dual citizenship how can we guarantee they would put Australia first? How would we know that they would protect Australians from wrongs perpetrated against us by other nations? Menzies didn't put Australian's first and he was one of us!

Remember when Bob Hawke was first elected and he went off to tell the Yanks a thing or two? They gave him the fife an drum treatment on the Whitehouse lawn and he came back almost whistling Dixie...

By keeping Section 44 as it is, we are hopefully getting a far better protection than would otherwise be the case if our Parliament was full of dual citizens.

Sadly, nothing can protect against royal loving failures like Menzies!

Didn't Howard take us to the war in Iraq based on lies? There were no WMD's and look at the mess we helped create? Don't forget history because he loved kissing American backside?

Try putting Australia first people... We need a strong self reliant Australia, not an Australia full of puppets with other countries pulling the strings like we have now!

Op2,

Calling the Bible "rubbish" is not "speaking civilly". As an average Australian, you will have the reading age of an 8 year old - just good enough to manage the simply-worded, single sentence paragraphs in newspapers, but nothing like the Bible or most non-fiction books.

Your opinions of the Bible - or anything else - are not likely to impress anyone.

Oh, and continuing to bang on about something most people know is not going to happen, even if they think it should , doesn't say much for your intelligence either.

PPS,

Do we really need a "reliant" Australia? What, or who, do you you want us to be reliant on? Just as well most posters will recognise your problem and assume you meant 'self-reliant'. But then, perhaps you didn't.

ttbn,

The Bible is a load of rubbish...have you read it?..lol

Even though it is a bit off the topic let's show you a few bits that prove me right and you wrong!

The Bible proves the Bible wrong!...lol

Moses said

Exodus 6:2-3 And GOD SPAKE UNTO MOSES, and said unto him, I am the LORD:

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

AND

Exodus 24:9-11 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: AND THEY SAW THE GOD OF ISRAEL: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also THEY SAW GOD, and did eat and drink.

AND

Numbers 12:6-8 And GOD said, HEAR NOW MY WORDS: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.

WITH HIM I SPEAK MOUTH TO MOUTH, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

AND YET THE BIBLE SAYS

John 1:18 [B] NO MAN HAS SEEN GOD AT ANY TIME, [/B] the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

And JESUS said

John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. YE HAVE NEITHER HEARD HIS VOICE AT ANY TIME, NOR SEEN HIS SHAPE.

AND

John 6:46 NOT THAT ANY MAN HATH SEEN THE FATHER, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

So who do you believe JESUS or Moses? It's your choice... Feel free oh intellectual one...lol

To be continued...

When I was studying the Bible I used to go back to the original Hebrew version for the Old Testament... No not Hebrew you think is the original and then check every word of every passage... I'd then check the English translations... So please I know way more than you!

Moses practiced witchcraft!

Numbers 5:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Miss a few verses then....

Numbers 5:16-22 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord."

Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water.

After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse.

Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you.

But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”—

here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.

May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

If this is GOD's word why aren't we doing this today? Oh OBVIOUSLY because it is a load of garbage! How many innocent women and unborn babies died from this horrendous pack of lies?

After you complete your comprehension 101 course in English start again in Bible 101 class... But this time try to study properly... lol

You didn't even know this was in there did you? lmao

OOPS! Case closed!

ttbn,

You typed.....Do we really need a "reliant" Australia? What, or who, do you you want us to be reliant on? Just as well most posters will recognise your problem and assume you meant 'self-reliant'. But then, perhaps you didn't.

Just to prove how your comprehension is pathetic...I didn't say reliant... Where's your intellect ttbn? Do not bear false witness Mr know nothing! lamo

Look oh master of the faux pas... I said

"Try putting Australia first people... We need a strong SELF RELIANT Australia, not an Australia full of puppets with other countries pulling the strings like we have now!"

Posted by Opinionated2, Sunday, 5 November 2017 8:39:30 AM

OUCH! It must hurt when you shoot yourself in the foot like you just did! lmao

So you did! I must have had one eye closed. You will not be expecting an apology.

What is a 'lamo'? Some teenage word, is it?

Why did you 'study ' the Bible if you hate it so much? Mostly Old Testament stuff. Bet you wouldn't be game to rubbish the Koran in the same way. You are a Muslim perhaps? Your fanaticism fits the mould.

Gee ttbn you sure aren't very good at guessing about me are you?

So I am a fanatic just because I know the Bible better than you and have actually read it? You are looking sillier with every post!

No I am not a muslim!

All the Abrahamic religions are based on a load of rubbish... Sorry you got fooled by not studying properly or not being intelligent enough to study properly...

No need for an apology as you made a dill of yourself and I'll just turn the other cheek...

I'll let you try to work out what lamo means... And once again your guess is wrong! It's not a teenage word it is an abbreviation!

I happened to use Jesus from the New Testament to prove Moses wrong...

Don't worry about not knowing much... I knew that about you already...lol

Now back to the topic at hand - The reason I post further thoughts is because many people read this stuff and maybe a few of them return to see if their is anything new.

I just thought people should read the true history and see a different perspective as to the risks of removing the citizenship requirements from our constitution.

Besides you haven't got time to keep posting here... You are trying to pass comprehension 101 and Bible 101.

Have fun!

OOps I typed their instead of there... Silly me!

So do you really think GOD told Moses to put curses on women and to put dust in their water to maybe miscarry?

It sounds like the Salem witch trials doesn't it?

If the baby survives the dusty water the woman is innocent... If the baby aborts the woman is guilty.

What was the test for a man's fidelity?

Nevermind it must be true you believe the Bible...lmao

Op2,

The old 'tit for tat' is OK. Sadly for you, the tit is rarely as effective as the tat. Second cab off the rank and all that.

Sadly for me?...lol

You said "As an average Australian, you will have the reading age of an 8 year old - just good enough to manage the simply-worded, single sentence paragraphs in newspapers, but nothing like the Bible or most non-fiction books."

And I proved you 100% wrong with a few Bible quotes... Are you always so ill-informed?

Now you go on with this tit for tat rubbish when you know nothing!...lmao

Do you always fail like this?

Oh just as an aside because you think only the OT is wrong look the New Testament is a load of rubbish also. I studied that using ancient Greek...

Open or closed tomb?

Matthew 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

OR

Luke 24:2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.

Luke you idiot you forgot to mention the angel...lol

And how many women attended the tomb?

John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

OR 2

Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

OR 3

Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him

OR A CROWD OF WHO KNOWS HOW MANY?

Luke 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

Nope the Bible is totally reliable on all matters... Even with your 5 year old comprehension skills the errors are obvious...lmao

So why do you think Boof Turnbull is so scared to have an audit? What does he know that we don't

Dear Opinionated2,

I see that you started a big discussion about the bible:
surely I have my reservations about the bible, after all I am a Hindu, it's you who raised this issue.

I make a clear distinction between fraud and innocent mistakes.
If a worker presses the wrong pedal, say because they have an yet-unknown neural condition, causing $10m damage, then they will be fired but not required to pay back their past salaries. Obviously if they knew of this condition but failed to report it, then they would be sued for the damage.

Thus, if a representative defrauded their electors by hiding the fact that they have or may have dual citizenship, whereas the absence of dual citizenship was important for their electors, then they should pay for it.

I do wonder how many electors actually care or would change their vote if they knew that their candidate was a dual citizen. I think a handful. Most electors do however care that their representative is honest.

If however, a candidate honestly and reasonably believed that they were not a dual citizen, but it was discovered otherwise, say that they were swapped as babies, or were an adopted orphan who unexpectedly discovered the identity of their biological parents, or that the country of Rylvania decided to grant citizenship to all people whose name adds up to 10 dashes and 10 dots in Morse-code, surely they should not suffer as a result.

If a candidate informed their electors of their dual citizenship, yet the electorate didn't mind it and voted them in, then they should be able to represent their electors. A representative's only allegiance should be to the real people who voted for him/her, not to some airy-fairy abstract concept such as "nation".

Yes, I know that there is a constitution out there and that it contains item 44, but this whole constitution is illegitimate to begin with because the actual people who live in this continent and presumed subject to it, were never even asked whether they accept it, how less so consented to it.

Actually you said to Foxy that your "views are based on solid philosophical and religious grounds:" what are yours based on?"

That is what got me started on religion... The fact that you are Hindu changes nothing for me and as Hinduism has the caste system once again it is simply wrong!

You are confusing laws when you discuss them.

When someone gets money from the Government that they are not entitled to they MUST pay it back. There are no ifs or buts!

They cannot use ignorance of the law as an excuse, and they cannot use ignorance of their position under the law. It is that simple!

I doubt a case for fraud could be made unless someone had evidence that at some time they knew they were illegally in parliament and failed to announce it!

Under the law they and their parties had an obligation to check their status of citizenship. It is easy to check.

So as they ignored their obligation under the law, and got elected whilst outside the law then they do have to pay the money back.

All you people are so keen to excuse rich people from paying their dues and yet seem quite happy for the book to be thrown at the poor people when they do similar things.

You seem to want to argue some weird - this Constitution isn't law thing. Do you believe in the sovereign citizen rubbish? If you do you are simply wrong!

Whether you agree with it or not the Constitution is a part of the laws governing Australia and these politicians are outside the law!

The pollies should pay the money back

The position of the Government regarding an audit as expressed by Boofa Turnbull and other members is an absurdity.

Even though there may be other members sitting in Parliament illegally and breaking the law, the government is too scared to set up an enquiry because they claim it is the members obligation to check.

It's the trust me I'm a politician argument... lmao

Boofa Turnbull is a lawyer and is totally ignoring his obligations as Prime Minister. Is the Speaker also ignoring his/her obligations under the law also. They throw people out for interjecting too often but let's ignore those who shouldn't be here in the first place. It is pathetic!

Perhaps we could change all laws to this robust model.

We could have bank robbers only needing to comply with the law as it suits them because informing the police is an individuals obligation.

As a lawyer and a Prime Minister, Boofa Turnbull won't acknowledge that he is sitting on a constitutional crisis. I wonder why? If he is ignoring a constitutional crisis just because of his weak position with the numbers, then when does that become an illegal act?

People may be sitting in our parliament illegally and voting on bills in our parliament illegally and this government doesn't want to know... Shameful!

Isn't failing to act in effect attempting to pervert the course of justice?

And people thought Turnbull might actually be a good PM...lmao

Dear Opionated2,

«Hinduism has the caste system»

Let's address your ignorance of Hinduism on a more appropriate thread.

«When someone gets money from the Government that they are not entitled to they MUST pay it back. There are no ifs or buts!»

I already mentioned that we OUGHT to return every cent we ever received from a government. But why MUST? Certainly there's an "If": IF your respect of laws is greater than your respect of common-sense!

«they cannot use ignorance of their position under the law. It is that simple!»

It's not that simple: your hidden assumption is that people are "under the law".

«It is easy to check.»

For some lucky people it's easy, for others not so. Even if one checks, they can still make mistakes and too many factors can remain unknown.

«So as they ignored their obligation»

Or misunderstood it and honestly believed that they comply. It's quite easy to read the law differently.

«All you people»

Who?

«are so keen to excuse rich people from paying their dues and yet seem quite happy for the book to be thrown at the poor people when they do similar things.»

I'm not excusing anyone: anyone, rich or poor, who received money from a government, is morally obliged to return it. Nobody, however, rich or poor, should be forced to do so.

«You seem to want to argue some weird - this Constitution isn't law thing.»

The constitution IS a law thing - and the law thing in total is immoral and illegitimate.

«the Constitution is a part of the laws governing Australia and these politicians are outside the law!»

The only law that governs Australia and the rest of the universe, is the law of God. If you like, include the laws of physics such as gravity and the 300,000Km/sec speed limit. The other laws which you speak about are the works of a criminal gang and one should be proud to live outside their laws.

«The pollies should pay the money back»

Yes, because this money is stolen - not because some law says so.

Yuyutsu,

I am not ignorant on Hinduism... It seems you might be...lol

That's why people say they are practicing religion because they never get it right anyway...lol

Our discussion is going nowhere... You are out in loony God is the only law land.

Do you have a driver's license? Did God issue it? lol

Do you have a marriage license? Did God sign it for you?...lol

Do you pay your taxes directly to God? - Can you send me his bank account number to me?...lol

The sad thing is you are serious... so why don't you pop off down the Doctors and get a referral to a psychologist or psychiatrist...

Apparently they are approved by God...lol

Dear Opinionated2,

It seems like you have nothing more to say on the subject-matter of this topic.

The new announcement regarding penalties for people who sit in parliament as dual citizens is just a distraction by Boof Turnbull for not having an audit.

The media all clamor over these announcements and in the rush to shock and awe miss a few points.

In his attempt to look as if he is doing something, Turnbull has bought time, and diverted the issue away from the guilty politicians having to pay back moneys and benefits they have received illegally.

What the Government was doing was buying time till now.

In their party room they would probably have known about this big surprise for some time, giving their side of politics and advantage. I wonder how long the Government members have known this was going to be announced?

Also by leaving it an obligation of the individual he has set up a weak non audit situation. Who is checking on the politicians?

No-one will go to jail... It is a load of rubbish.

Turnbull has been one disappointment after the other.

He ruined our chances of becoming a republic, he destroyed the potential of the NBN by allowing old copper cables to remain, he has cost us a fortune with a nonsensical postal plebiscite on gay marriage, he opened the door and failed as a PM completely.

The saddest thing is on the gay marriage issue. His weakness on not allowing it to be put to a vote in parliament was a political stunt to let his side of politics off the hook when they eventually get to vote. They can now say when they vote yes, that they were following the results of the plebiscite keeping them in better with the people who are so against alternate loving relationships. Hang the consequences of the poor people whose families have voted against their right to marriage. Hang the pain this has caused!

After what he did in the Republican plebiscite years ago I had very little faith in him ever achieving anything as PM...

My lack of faith in him has been soundly rewarded! He is a total failure!

Dear OP2,

You're right - across multiple portfolios government
policy is a shambles. However - what about our economy?
How's that doing?

Hi Foxy,

The economy is doing fine if you look at the share market but the real economy is mediocre at best. I am not an economist.

We have more household debt than is sustainable, families are doing it really tough with many having their credit cards linked to their homeloans and going backwards to survive. Cost of living is increasing.

Wage growth is basically stagnant.

We have young people who can't afford housing due to a failure of the Government to act on negative gearing and other policies that may put downward pressure on house prices.

The gap between rich and poor is growing excessively.

We are going backwards in regard to environmentally friendly policies with the Government catering more to it's financial backers than the future and our children.

Our ridiculous policy of being a services economy with virtually no manufacturing is a disaster waiting to happen.

The fact that we have had a long period of growth the growth hasn't added to middle class and lower income prosperity. Something huge is wrong! Small businesses are suffering and just hanging in there.

Retail is under huge pressure from online suppliers and will have a flow on effect to shopping centres and vacancy rates.

The trickle down effect (a complete lie in politics) doesn't work and yet this Government

Through all these years of growth with low interest rates we have become more and more debt ridden and all the Government has as an answer is to give tax cuts to the rich and companies.

So all in all the economy looks deceptively as though it's growing but it is actually facing a huge correction at some stage... Good luck when that happens!

But why ask me... There are far more qualified people who aren't aligned to any political party (like me) who can expand on the points greater than I can.

Why did you ask? Come on fess up...lol

In my rush to finish this because real life is calling I didn't finish this sentence.

The trickle down effect (a complete lie in politics) doesn't work and yet this Government seems to be relying on that again as it's fix all strategy. They should investigate the flood up effect when they give benefits to the lower incomes.

As they spend 100% of their incomes just to survive the money always floods up back into the hands of the rich anyway.

The rich put it in the bank and the lower and middle income earners spend it all to survive.

Which method of helping the economy do you think help the economy best?

OMG! I will never rush a post again...

This line needs better explanation...

There are far more qualified people who aren't aligned to any political party (like me) who can expand on the points greater than I can.

I am absolutely not aligned to any political party whatsoever! I didn't want people to think I am politically aligned in any way whatsoever.

Dear OP2,

I asked because I'm trying to find at least one
positive thing that the current government could
be given credit for. But it's not looking very
hopeful at the moment.

Besides, you seem to know what you're talking
about.

Dear Foxy,

«I'm trying to find at least one positive thing that the current government could be given credit for. But it's not looking very hopeful at the moment.»

Do you know what's worse that a hole in your sock?

- Holes in both socks!

One cannot evaluate governments by asking what good they brought: the correct measure is, how worse it could be had they not been there and some other politicians would have taken their place.

A better explanation of the flood up effect...

When taxes are decreased on companies the only people who benefit are the share holders to a small extent and the bosses through falsely awarded bonuses or benefits.

When taxes are decreased on the wealthy as well they don't really need the money so they usually just bank it. As the bosses are the rich in the first example they do the same.

The poor, low income families and middle income families have to spend any tax cuts they get just to survive or to provide their families a slightly improved lifestyle.

A perfect example was the baby bonus. When it was handed out many families, according to the media at the time, bought big screen TVs. There were three huge problems with the criticisms regarding this.

1. They were doing what they were meant to... Obviously it would have been better if they had bought a product made in Australia from small retailers but they at least spent the money in our economy!

2. They were doing exactly what rich people do... Deciding whether to spend their money or not.

3. They actually purchased an investment in the fun times that new TV provided for their families...

The criticisms were just another false attack on poorer Australians...

The problem in Australia is a lack of patriotism by the rich but you never hear it mentioned.

They want to operate in the Australian market but undermine that same market by shifting anything they can overseas. They want the benefits without the costs.

That is why overseas call centres are a disgrace... Our people need jobs and so they have to pay a little more. At least our workers spend the money in our economy benefiting all Aussies including the unpatriotic rich!

Of course the right love this stuff... Cost cutting is all their mantra and hang the cost to our nation. Furthermore the coalition aren't pro the worker... They treat all workers as though they are ranting Unionists.

Cont...

Continued...

Who is more likely to spend their money overseas?... The rich! Yet the party that represents the rich especially will always claim jobs! jobs! jobs! - Did they mean overseas jobs?...lol

Someone should do a study on where the Pollies holiday this Christmas... I bet most of them won't be holidaying in Australia...lol

Who are more likely to pressure the Government for tax cuts?... The rich... They hate it that they actually are helping our country through their taxes... They only want the poorer people to help the country through their taxes and their spending!

One of the most important roles of taxation is the redistribution of income... All fine until the rich have to put in...lol

Who are more likely to spend their wealth overseas? The rich... Again they earn the money in Australia and spend it elsewhere - How unpatriotic!

Who are more likely to find a tax loophole or a tax haven overseas to hide their wealth... The rich.

Wasn't Turnbull metioned in the Panama Papers?

http://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/panama-papers-malcolm-turnbull-named-20160511-got0di.html

Turnbull's defense... the Sargeant Schultz classic "I know nothing!" Wow a Lawyer and Director who knows nothing...lol

Now we have another release of the Paradise Papers... More tax Haven information! What Aussies will be mentioned in those?

I am willing to bet that Mr and Mrs Joe Average at the end of our street won't get a mention...lol

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-16/lanis-govendir-malcolm-turnbull-and-tax-avoidance/6861606

The Labor pollies are no better in many ways... They love the benefits and the overseas travel...

So back on this topic... Everyone should be encouraging anyone they know who rely on Centrelink or who have had to pay moneys back to any Government Department to email and contact their local members.

These pollies need to pay the money back, the same as we make the poor pay any wrongful payments they get back!

Another question that should be asked on this topic of pollies paying their moneys back...

How many politicians currently on their Pollies Pensions were dual citizens when in Parliament illegally and are still receiving moneys wrongfully.

The Government has an obligation to audit each and every one of them.

Getting all the money back could help pay off some of our national debt!

With John Alexander now resigning from parliament we what a farce it is leaving it up to the politicians to check this for themselves. Most never even did it!

As stated earlier this Section 44 is a very smart section as it stops people with divided loyalties selling us out or being tempted to sell us out.

In the past Australian citizens have sold us out so this makes it a very important law.

See here for info why!

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7990#247567

So It looks like the Turnbull Government is now dead and we have a major Constitutional crisis on our hands.

Look at the number of people with some doubts hanging over their heads...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-19/whos-next-in-the-dual-citizenship-mess/8819510

Then if you actually audit the past politicians who have been illegally elected and others that are now on parliamentary pensions who have now been elected, we face a great opportunity to get some money back.

Here is what Barnaby said about people who owed Centrelink money!

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/no-apology-from-barnaby-joyce-as-government-doubles-down-on-centrelink-debt-clawback-20170106-gtmzaw.html

So following in the example so proudly set by our ex deputy PM we should too shouldn't worry about demanding these wrong entitlements to be repaid.

If an unemployed person or a pensioner should have to repay moneys they received that they weren't entitled to, then the same should apply to the salaries and benefits paid to these politicians that they weren't entitled to.

Let's force politicians to abide by laws they have no apologies for enforcing on others regarding entitlements.

Send in the debt collectors!