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!