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