In my haste to get away I mistyped the first line of the above post.

It should have read

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't be waived just because it is archaic.

And remember Joyce got to the level of Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of his party whilst not eligible for Parliament!

The same laws applied to Centrelink people should be applied to these politicians or else we have a massage injustice to the poor in our society!

Dear Foxy,

«What we were discussing was the law of the land as applied to same sex marriage that is a different issue to this one.»

The question is, how can you cherry-pick, respect the law in some instances but not in others?

Opinionated2 demands that the law should be respected always, overriding common sense and everything else.

OTOH, I say that all laws are illegitimate to begin with and should never be respected.

But you want the cherry-pick which laws to respect: what philosophical grounds can you base this cherry-picking on?

Regarding this specific archaic law about dual citizenship, I believe that what its authors had in mind was to boost nationalism and Australian identity. I oppose that objective, but my views are based on solid philosophical and religious grounds: what are yours based on?

Way back in the 1950s people disregarded some laws with impunity, particularly those in regard to swimwear.
I remember some Uni students decided to test the law regarding swimming in certain parts of Sydney Harbour, they dived in and asked the police to arrest them, result: police laughter and no other action.

Yuyutsu if you can show me where in any laws, even native laws, or religious laws the term "where common sense and everything else dictates ignore these laws and the application of these laws"then I will be most impressed.

Lets take Biblical laws...

It doesn't say "Though shalt not commit adultry unless common sense and everything indicates she is a real hotty so ignore the "though shalt not bit.

Law doesn't work like that!

So much for your solid philospophical and religious grounds...

There is no common sense failure, philosophical or religious failure in my argument...

But Biblical Law covers it

Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets

So if the people who breach Centrelink rules have to pay the money back the politicians who breach the rules should also pay the money back! Their is NO common sense failure in that argument whatsoever!

The Nationals have this in their constitution under objects... and I quote

2.1 The objects of the Party shall be to:

(a) promote within Australia -

(i) a society based on Christian ethics and loyalty to the Crown

So as Barnaby agrees to these rules then he should pay the money back!

The law is the law and common sense doesn't enter into it!

$9 million dollar thieves.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/citizenship-five-paid-nearly-9-million-in-salaries-they-were-not-entitled-to-20171030-gzazka.html

Citizenship five paid nearly $9 million in salaries they were not entitled to

eir citizenship status collected close to $9 million in taxpayer-funded salaries they were not entitled to.

Former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce accounts for $2.8 million of that money and his former Nationals deputy Fiona Nash $2.6 million. Both first entered parliament in 2005 and have benefited from ministerial bonuses since 2013.

Former Greens senators Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters were paid $1.8 million and $1.3 million respectively, and One Nation's Malcolm Roberts collected about $266,000 between the 2016 election and Friday's High Court verdict.

All up, they collected a total of $8,769,509 in base salary and ministerial bonuses. The figure - based on an analysis of MP pay rates and positions held over the last 13 years - does not include committee bonuses or any allowances.

It also does not include any staff or office costs.

And it comes on top of the price tag of the High Court case itself, which has been estimated to have cost taxpayers up to $3 million given the Commonwealth picked up the tab for half a dozen of the nation's top silks and their teams.

However none of the five were eligible for the generous parliamentary defined benefits scheme pension because all were elected after 2004.

Con'T

All five MPs were booted out of Parliament after the court ruled them ineligible because of their dual citizenship. Mr Joyce and Mr Ludlam had New Zealand citizenships, Ms Nash and Mr Roberts British and Ms Waters Canadian.

While the verdict only related to their eligibility at the time of last year's election, all five inherited their dual citizenship status at birth - meaning all were in fact illegitimately elected for the entirety of their federal political careers.

While the Turnbull government could pursue repayment - at least for the roughly $1.3 million paid out since July 2016 - it is unlikely to do so.

While the Department of Finance is likely to write to the dumped MPs with a bill for salaries, allowances, superannuation and staff payments, they can easily apply to the government for a waiver.

Former Family First senator Bob Day did just that earlier this year after he was disqualified for contravening pecuniary interest elements of the constitution.

Special Minister of State Scott Ryan agreed to the waiver, saying it was "consistent with the outcome in previous similar cases".

That approach would only be likely to change if evidence emerged that an MP had deliberately or knowingly defrauded the taxpayer.

Asked on Monday whether the MPs should pay back any money, acting Prime Minister Julie Bishop said: "That would be a matter of advice from the Department of Finance and that would be a matter for the Finance Minister."

All the pensioners etc chased by Centerlink should turn up at Joyces election rally and boo him