Australian Greens Senator Scott Ludlam resigns after forgetting to renounce dual-citizenship - Polidicks

[quote=ABC News]Deputy Greens leader Scott Ludlam is stepping down from Federal Parliament, after admitting he has been ineligible to sit in the Senate for his whole tenure because he holds dual citizenship. Mr Ludlam admitted his election was invalid because he did not renounce his New Zealand citizenship, which the WA Senator said he only discovered he had a week ago. Section 44 of the constitution disqualifies potential candidates from election to the Parliament of Australia if they hold dual or plural citizenship. Prior to his announcement, Mr Ludlam had become one of the Greens' most prominent senators after first being elected at the 2007 federal election. His admission about his New Zealand citizenship opened the possibility that the Commonwealth could pursue him to pay back years in salary and allowances, but Mr Ludlam said he was confident that would not eventuate. Mr Ludlam's Senate position is expected to be filled by a recount of ballot papers from the 2016 election. That would likely lead to the election of 22-year-old Jordon Steele-John who was third on the Greens Senate ticket.[/quote] Watch his press conference and read Barrie Cassidy's analysis at [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-14/senator-scott-ludlam-resign-constitution-dual-citizenship/8708606[/url] [editline]14th July 2017[/editline] Can a mod please fix the typo of his surname in the title? It should be Ludlam, not Ludlum.

You would think this stuff would be checked.

I still don't understand why government rules have to ruin runs of what could be good candidates over something so trivial. Who gives a shit if they also have citizenship for another country, what actually matters is their performance as a leader.

[QUOTE=Fapplejack;52467583]I still don't understand why government rules have to ruin runs of what could be good candidates over something so trivial. Who gives a shit if they also have citizenship for another country, what actually matters is their performance as a leader.[/QUOTE] The Australian Constitution: [quote]44. Any person who - [B](i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power: or[/B] (ii.) Is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer: or (iii.) Is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent: or (iv.) Holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth: or (v.) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons: shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. But sub-section iv. does not apply to the office of any of the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen's Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen's navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth.[/quote] Are you suggesting we ignore our constitution?

[QUOTE=Fapplejack;52467583]I still don't understand why government rules have to ruin runs of what could be good candidates over something so trivial. Who gives a shit if they also have citizenship for another country, what actually matters is their performance as a leader.[/QUOTE] uhh, because it potentially opens them to being influenced by a foreign power??? [QUOTE=download;52467484]You would think this stuff would be checked.[/QUOTE] I don't understand either, shouldn't there be a background check when you enter parliament. I sort of understand given the circumstances how it could have slipped by Scott Ludlam if there's no sufficient background check process before becoming a senator. Is it really that simple? So weird [editline]14th July 2017[/editline] It's a shame, because he was a very good senator and well respected even if by non-Greens supporter. A lot of integrity and very sensible, and very strong on issues like mental health as he has experienced depression himself. But rules are rules, I'm sure he can benefit somewhere else equally well.

He could always renounce his citizenship and run again.

[QUOTE=download;52467626]He could always renounce his citizenship and run again.[/QUOTE] He might well do, but it looks like with a recount it's going to another Greens Senator who is 22 years old I'm all for more young people in the senate but...yeah

[QUOTE=killerteacup;52467609]uhh, because it potentially opens them to being influenced by a foreign power??? [/QUOTE] New Zealand will rule Australia again one day, might as well let it happen sooner. But seriously yeah, things like what is stated in the Australian constitution aren't a bad idea, I mean I don't know if it would've prevented Trump from coming to power but it certainly would prevent someone with obvious intentions.

[QUOTE=download;52467603]The Australian Constitution: Are you suggesting we ignore our constitution?[/QUOTE] "I don't understand why the rules forbid this" "Because the rules forbid this"

[QUOTE=download;52467626]He could always renounce his citizenship and run again.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't it just have been possible for him to renounce his citizenship instead? It's not as though he intentionally misled people.

It's possible for him to renounce and run again, but he's not: [quote="The Age"]Under one option being canvassed, Senator Ludlam could return to Parliament should he renounce his dual citizenship by the time a replacement is selected, however Greens sources say he is likely to remain out until at least the next election. Expressing regret at unfinished work, he said it was "too soon" to talk about a political comeback. "I will find some other way of stirring up trouble."[/quote]

[QUOTE=GordonZombie;52468196]Wouldn't it just have been possible for him to renounce his citiaenship instead? It's not as though he intentionally misled people.[/QUOTE] Australian politicians, regardless of party, tend to have integrity. For example, a NSW Premier once resigned from his job because he failed to declare receiving a gift of a bottle of wine. Also, unlike people such as Jeremy Corbyn, party leaders here tend to resign immediately when they lose leadership spills or motions of no confidence. By resigning, he's admitting wrongdoing and taking responsibility. He's not taking the American approach of just brushing it off or hoping that no one will care if he stays on.

[QUOTE=download;52467603]The Australian Constitution: Are you suggesting we ignore our constitution?[/QUOTE] It was written in a more nationalistic/xenophobic era, and constitutions are meant to be changed by design. Besides, it's just New Zealand.

[QUOTE=killerteacup;52467609]uhh, because it potentially opens them to being influenced by a foreign power??? I don't understand either, shouldn't there be a background check when you enter parliament. I sort of understand given the circumstances how it could have slipped by Scott Ludlam if there's no sufficient background check process before becoming a senator. Is it really that simple? So weird [editline]14th July 2017[/editline] It's a shame, because he was a very good senator and well respected even if by non-Greens supporter. A lot of integrity and very sensible, and very strong on issues like mental health as he has experienced depression himself. But rules are rules, I'm sure he can benefit somewhere else equally well.[/QUOTE] is nz really a foreign power? half the time aussies can't tell the difference between the people or the cultures and to call them a power is a pretty big stretch

[QUOTE=butre;52469548]is nz really a foreign power? half the time aussies can't tell the difference between the people or the cultures and to call them a power is a pretty big stretch[/QUOTE] What if say the Senator was an agent for a large power such as China or the United States? Would it still be appropriate then? Or should the constitution be amended to allow just people from New Zealand to be exempt?

[QUOTE=download;52467603]The Australian Constitution: Are you suggesting we ignore our constitution?[/QUOTE] Yea if it's fuckin stupid how about a change. I'm sure everyone was harping on about how unthinkable it'd be to go against the bible a couple hundred years ago.

[QUOTE=Fapplejack;52467583]I still don't understand why government rules have to ruin runs of what could be good candidates over something so trivial. Who gives a shit if they also have citizenship for another country, what actually matters is their performance as a leader.[/QUOTE] politicians should have skin in the game there's been cases of people who will pretend to be loyal to one country and then funnel their monies or whatever elsewhere (plus having dual citizenship means you can flee to another country when you get into trouble - many such cases!)

[QUOTE=killerteacup;52467609]uhh, because it potentially opens them to being influenced by a foreign power???[/quote] In theory yes, but look at the US, we have a Russian president.