There is another point I did not mention.

If a Bill passed through both houses and the senate vote went with
a majority of one, then in the future someone could claim that the
law was not valid because one senator was not validly elected.

Dear Shadow Minister,

First in a democracy, any citizen should be eligible to
stand for Parliament. This principle is consistent with
representative democracy, a principle inherent in the
Constitution. Secondly, there should be very few restraints
on elector choice. Further, because of the difficulty of
Constitutional change in Australia, the disqualifications
should not be contained in the Constitution, which entrenches
archaic language devised in circumstances that prevailed a
century ago. They are more properly dealt with through
legislation.

Disqualifications must be flexible to deal with social and
economic change and to remain relevant. Legislative
protections are more flexible and equitable and can be
amended to deal with new dangers as they emerge.

The existing disqualifications are deficient. Indeed s44
was labelled "vestigial" by Barwick C.J. 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.

As a general policy, there should be a presumption against
limitations on eligibility, two principles underpin this
policy as listed above.

http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/pubs/pops/pop36/kalokerinos.pdf

I guess there has been a 'technical' breach of one of our electoral laws, therefore I'm clearly wrong. However in the scheme of things, surely we have much more important issues to dwell upon, rather than some minor infraction of an electoral law? I know, I do get it, but...?

o sung wu,

I confidently expected that with your service and principles you would be accepting that a breach of the Constitution had occurred and his position was intolerable.

Ludlum had a jolly good ride and unlike the less fortunate ordinary human who is hauled forth to confront a Court, does not have the benefit of his status and political mates to look out for him, he is unlikely to suffer any real setback. Doubtless as far as the Greens are concerned is a hero who has been wronged (the law should not apply to a Green) and he will later displace another lesser poliie who will be obliged to make way for him.

However, the question still remains. Why weren't the available controls in place and operating where Ludlum was concerned? It isn't sufficient to blame a clerk.

Foxy,

I gather that you are advocating for all Aus citizens to be able to stand for Parliament including criminals, those with pecuniary interests that conflict with their duties, etc.

All democracies allow all citizens of good standing to run for their equivalent of a parliament, and all have conditions similar to Australia's.

The requirement not to be a dual citizen is not without reason and given the almost non-existent cost of compliance for a tiny handful of polies, the argument for changing the constitution is pitiful.

As it is a constitutional requirement, one simply complies, defers from running, or in Scott Numbnuts' case face the consequences.

Hi there LEOJ...

I completely agree with you, as I indicated in my previous Email. With a total admission and acknowledgment of my error. However, our nation is going to hell in a hand-basket, from one bad fiscal situation to another, yet we're still trying to nit-pick some minor technical oversight, that one Party has over another.

When we should 'ALL' have our collective (bipartisan) focuses on the main game, rather than attempting to score a few points here 'n there, from one Party or another? What in hell is wrong with us? Let the first Political Party who've never sinned in some way, against the rules and regulations of the C'Wealth Electoral Act, cast the first stone! It's not the sinning that's the crime LEOJ; it's getting caught.

Any political party standing at the next federal election, that can absolutely guarantee to 'permanently lower' energy prices by say 30% across the board, will win power and hold onto it, without a doubt.