Here is one to think about, under 44 (iv) & (v) could all members
of parliament be disqualified as they receive super fund
benefits as an asset due to investments of the Future Fund ?

moonshine, "Try that sort of rort on with Centrelink and see how far you get!"

Exactly! Or try it on the Tax Office (ATO).

Which reminds me that some who maintain dual citizenship get sly tax advantages. Who checks the register of parliamentarians' financial interests? Would that be no-one again by any chance?

Paul1405, is flying the balloon to reinstate Ludlum as though nothing has occurred. That is typical Greens' contempt for the public. Utter hypocrisy that will inevitably rebound on the Greens, a collective of far left activists, that lost all pretensions years ago to being interested in the environment and sustainability.

Their support of 'Open Borders' immigration and in NSW at least, being linked to overseas billionaire Soros' goal of denying Australia's separate statehood and political autonomy sees to that.

Dear Shadow Minister,

It was Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick who stated
that the existing disqualifications are deficient
and he labelled s44 as "vestigial." In other words
forming a very, very small remnant of something that
has become functionless.

I am not contradicting
myself. On the contrary I have pointed out 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. Sir Barwick makes
this quite clear.

As a general policy, there should be a presumption
against limitations on eligibility.

Two principles according to him - underpin this policy.

1) First, in a democracy, any citizen should be eligible
to stand for Parliament. And no, not criminals.
Restrictions are placed on the
ability of criminals to stand for political office.

This principle is consistent with
representative democracy,
a principle inherent in the Constitution.

2) 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. (hence Chief
Justice Barwick's use of the term "vestigial"). They are more
properly dealt with through legislation.

The point being made -
is that 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.

You and others,can go on ranting that Scott Ludlum has only
himself to blame. I won't.

To me I think it's one hell of a
penalty to pay for not checking on your relationship with a
nation you left at 3 years of age and never knew. While in the
meantime you worked honestly, did nothing wrong, and resigned
immediately from your position when you learned of the
unfortunate situation.

Scott Ludlum has lived here for half a century without causing
a fuss. And baying for his blood - is simply wrong.

The resignation of Scott Ludham brought a wry smile to my face.

I recall that this situation has only come about because of a court case brought against elected senator Heather Hill of One Nation. It was instigated by Asian business man named Sue. The court found that Hill was ineligible to stand for the Senate because she held dual citizenship. There were quite a number of parliamentarians, on both sides of the House, that held dual citizenship. The rule had been ignored until this time.

Hill resigned after the case and ON appointed Len Harris in her place.

The hypocrocy here is that no other members resigned their parliamentary positions and they just sat quietly and withdrew their dual citizenry prior to the next election.

Senator Ludham would have known his position and should now be made to repay all his benefits received as a Senator.

Special pleading for the elitist political Overlords who see themselves as being above the law and even above the Constitution.

Another thing, Ludlam received $200,000 for nigh on ten years, but shrugs off his debt through 'oversight' and says he has no assets. Incredible gall!

But a pensioner, low-paid worker, or student who is found to be overpaid by Centrelink is informed, 'You pay up now, or else' and the feds mean it too! No special pleading, 'This is trivial', for them.

Did Ludlam ever hold a NZ passport? Did he ever cast a vote for either or both countries? How did he complete his immigration/departure forms for those overseas flights? There is always a trail.

The amazing thing is that he got away with it for so long. How did he do it? While viciously laying the boots into others too.

Shadow,
I stand corrected: contrary to what I originally said, it is not now impossible to gain dual Australia/NZ citizenship.

But I maintain my belief that it's a cockup not fraud. Ludlum had practically nothing to gain and everything to lose by keeping his dual citizenship.

The really surprising thing is that Larissa Waters has just resigned after discovering she's in the same situation!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-18/larissa-waters-greens-resigns-senate-over-citizenship-bungle/8720066