The reply and my response is bellow.
Dear Mr Magrathea
I refer to your email 10 May 2015 addressed to the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Tom Rogers, concerning the operation of section 44 of the Constitution. I have been asked to reply to your email on behalf of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).
As you are aware from previous communications with the AEC (including with the previous Chairman, the Hon Peter Heerey AM QC), the AEC has no role in determining the eligibility of candidates under section 44 of the Constitution. Under the Administrative Arrangements Order the Constitution is administered by the Attorney-General, not by the AEC. Accordingly, the AEC does not accept the claim made in your email that the AEC has some role in determining whether a candidate is disqualified by the operation of section 44 of the Constitution.
You have once again made the claim that because a person may have been born overseas that they will be disqualified as a candidate by the operation of section 44 of the Constitution. Such a claim is not correct. The mere fact that a person was born overseas does not mean that they hold dual citizenship or will be in breach of section 44 of the Constitution. This is made clear by the comments of the High Court in Sue v Hill  HCA 30.
Under the Commonwealth Electoral Act (Electoral Act), the AEC is only given limited powers to petition the Court of Disputed Returns. The AEC is unable to petition the Court of Disputed Returns as you suggest as the AEC would need to be in possession of some actual facts that would invalidate the election or return (see section 355(a) and (aa) of the Electoral Act). The material that you have previously provided does not establish that any candidate or current Member of Parliament is or was disqualified due to the operation of section 44 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the AEC is not in possession of any facts that could form the basis of a valid petition to the Court of Disputed Returns. In addition, the power to refer any question of the qualifications of a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives to the Court of Disputed Returns rests with the Parliament under sections 376 and 377 of the Electoral Act. The AEC has no power to refer the question of the qualifications of a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives to the Court of Disputed Returns.
I trust that the above clearly explains the position of the AEC on this matter.
Paul Pirani | Chief Legal Officer
And the reply
Thank you again Mr PiraniI do know from past communications that the AEC can not determine citizenship, but also the franchise says you must allow every Australian the right to vote as set down in the Electoral Act.
As for evidence that a current MP is there illegally, I have provided much evidence that Mr Abbott was born in the UK and that he has failed to renounce his British citizenship, you yourself told me that you could not examine citizenship issues, Mr Colvins office, the Commissioner of Australian Federal Police has advised me that he can not examine fraud committed by Mr Abbott in providing false declarations to the AEC because the AEC can not examine citizenship. Proof of Mr Abbott's overseas birth was available at the National Archives until he had that document made secret, a copy of the document asking his overseas birth be registered was lodged after applying for Australian citizenship, a copy is in this newspaper article, his failure to renounce British Citizenship is in the FOI log for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2015/048. That FOI states that the renunciation papers do not exist, more than enough evidence for your to query eligibility. You might also look at a request from MP for Griffith, Ms Terri Butler, she wrote to Mr Abbott in January this year asking for a copy of his renunciation papers, four months later he is yet to reply. That letter is here. I have been told there is enough evidence there to query a charge of fraud but they can not press those charges because the AEC can not ask about citizenship. Perhaps you now have enough for fraud chargesd\ or at least asking the High Court to determine if your procedures are proper under the Commonwealth laws.
For you, the AEC, to meet your commitment to the franchise and to the electoral act you must ask another body to determine eligibility of candidates. The AEC has failed to do this in the past, I an not explain why no one has looked at the laws and your franchise and determined that if a person is in parliament illegally something should be done by the AEC. Hill is an example where you failed as an organisation,, private individuals had to take that matter to the court of disputed returns, whereas the responsibility should have been with the AEC to ensure all voters get to vote for someone who stands for parliament under the laws of the Commonwealth.
Will you refer my letters to the deputy commissioners and yourself to the Attorney Generals department as they are the ultimate body with regard to interpretation of Commonwealth laws as you seem reluctant to ask the Court of Disputed Returns or the High Court of the proper way to conduct matters.
If you would like to keep me out of poverty, please press the button and thank you all that do.