o sung wu, " What a load of utter nonsense!"

There isn't a law that someone doesn't say that about. The gaols are full of them.

Recently a senior union official said that she would choose what laws she would observe and she would break and she didn't like.

However in this case there is an available law and it is enshrined in the Constitution.

So would you agree that it is reasonable for the public to expect a member of the Australian Senate to have regard for the law?

should be, '.and she would break ANY she didn't like'.

Unfortunately it is not as simple as saying Aus & NZ are so similar
and are ANZACs. We have a lot of people here with birth places with
quite different legal systems.
If a situation developed they could plead their other nationality
excused them of responsibility.

It is to avoid this problem that we have the rule.
Certainly the Electoral office for his first election should have
quizzed him closely as they are the ones with the knowledge.
They should have taken steps themselves and not relied on the
candidates answers. They are at fault for not picking it up.

Thats right Bazz. That is exactly what Abbott's problem is. He is only a new Australian and can't let his old customs go. Far better off with a home coming, than sliming around here.

Should an Australian Senator enjoy less law and less responsibility than an ordinary citizen, by virtue of his/her status?

OR

Should Senators be even more mindful of the law and model the ethics and principles worthy of the trust that is being placed in them?

Is there anyone watching? Who watches the watchers?

In public life there are many examples of abuses of trust, some very serious. In many cases the offenders seem to have been able to escape detection for years and some managed to escape responsibility too.

Aidan,

What twaddle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_nationality_law#New_Zealand_citizenship_by_birth

If you are born in NZ, you automatically gain citizenship except in very rare circumstances. Similarly, you never lose citizenship unless you renounce it, and it has been like this since 1949. SL even admitted that he knew that he was born in NZ, and so unless he was mentally retarded should have suspected that he had citizenship.

My point with respect to the FOI on SL's NZ citizenship was not that he was not entitled to reject it, but rather that it should have been a big wake up call that it was an issue and should check.

Foxy,

While I understand GR's sentiments I wholeheartedly disagree with it for the following reasons:

1-The requirement that MPs don't have a conflict of interest does not prohibit people with dual citizenships or those who do business with government from aspiring to be MPs, only that they remove this conflict of interest by renouncing their dual citizenships and severing financial interests with the government before taking the extremely privileged position as an MP.

2-The requirement is not onerous, SL could renounce his citizenship by simply signing a document and paying a small fee, and still retain his right to travel to and work in NZ. Compare this to Labor's high court challenge for a lib MP to lose his seat because a tenant of his has a commercial relationship with Australia post?

3-Renoucing citizenship is not permanent. If after being an MP, SL could easily regain his NZ citizenship if he so wished.