GarryP

I think you might have missed the "no" in there.

I'll add that they cannot have any contacts with banks or other large financial institution; or be lawyers, either.

And they should need to undergo psychiatric tests, and tests of basic knowledge too, specifically including technology.

scrubbedexpat020

What's the penalty for being a dual-citizen MP/Senator? You lose a job you shouldn't have had in the first place.

We have a choice of an ongoing audit of MPs (prospective and sitting), OR introducing a meaningful penalty for contravening the constitution by not conducting the required personal due diligence.

As it is at the moment it's worth keeping quiet and hoping you won't be found out. I wonder how many there are?

Beoz

We have a choice of an ongoing audit of MPs (prospective and sitting), OR introducing a meaningful penalty for contravening the constitution by not conducting the required personal due diligence. OR get the stupid constitution changed.

All the retrospective chit chatter is completely useless. Moving forward ..............

scrubbedexpat020

Is there the support for changing the constitution from the people? I'm not too sure.

ATM, it would be seen as reward for disrespecting the constitution - let's make the wrongs right by making the right wrong, if you see what I mean?

Beoz

Well if you want to have a love affair with silly rules, drama, news, schoolboy antics, and millions wasted on such scrutiny, your call.

scrubbedexpat020

I don't buy the millions. How hard is it to use the internet to check your right to citizenship? 15mins max. The problem is assuming the people who should tell the truth will, based on recent case studies. My approach would be not to scrutinise every polly to see whether they have told the truth, but to have a penalty that makes them think twice about being dishonest. I have a big issue with people who disrespect the constitution - inch and mile come to mind.

I think the rule is silly, therefore I won't respect it. Why don't we all choose a law we think is silly and ignore it? I'm old-fashioned: the law is the law until Parliament changes it. If Parliament wants to change it, fine by me. Why haven't they, as this problem is not new?

GarryP

The form apparently has a threat of 12 months in jail for a false statement. I think that that should have been used to concentrate the minds of what are, quite often, lawyers.

Beoz

You are starting to move beyond the drama. Well done.

scrubbedexpat020

Is that you, Malcolm?

Beoz

Malcolm hasn't moved on yet.

bcworld

I think Malcolm will be moving on very shortly!

Beoz

I'd swap him for Julie. There's something a little bit elderly fit about Julie.

carcajou

To those who don't know, it is an unexpected and well-received benefit.

It is not a "trap in the grass" to "watch out for" that the media have presented it as. They love their powerful patrons and I find it disgraceful that something that has affected 226 people - all of whom should have done due diligence - is being portrayed as some kind of national tragedy. I believe they did do due diligence and just thought they wouldn't get caught.

A question, and I really don't know the answer: How many of the disqualified, other than Barnaby Joyce, have renounced and are planning to stand again?

bcworld

The problem is the right hates her too...we'll just end up back at square one.

scrubbedexpat020

That, and it's a silly rule that needn't apply to them so need to bother. It's worse than the expense scandal. More disrespect and arrogance from people that are supposed to set an example. I know, I'm so naive - expecting all politicians to obey the rules.

I guess Turnbull and Shorten are running the numbers on who has the least to lose - can't wait to see the solution from the person with the greatest right to take the moral high ground. The suspense is killing me.