Australian Constitution, s16: "The qualification of a senator shall be the same as those of a member of the House of Representatives."
s34(i): "... must be an elector entitled to vote at the election of members of the House of Representatives, or a person qualified to become such an elector ..."
Australians are allowed to be overseas electors only if they intend to return to Australia within 6 years.
I don't think a court could reasonably conclude that Assange's intention to return would be a serious intention, given that he is going to be under an effectively indefinite house arrest.
Even if he did get elected, he would eventually be evicted for failing to attend sittings.
(Of course, I am not a lawyer or an electoral commissioner).
The short of it is that being qualified to become such an elector is a broader category than actually being on the electoral roll - you don't need to be on the roll to run for the Senate, just meet the basic requirements in S93.
I still think a court would be asked to rule on the question of "intention to reside", which is what the whole thing revolves on.
Assange can wish to reside in Australia inside the 6 year deadline. But that's not the same as being realistically able to. In that case, he may be unable to form a legally meaningful intent.
Or the Act might be read in the sense that intent is intent, regardless of whether such an intent could ever be realised.
In either case, watch for this section to be rewritten after the election. Or even before.
The "intent to reside" requirement is in S94A, which limits who can apply to the Electoral Commissioner to be enrolled. But that's not the same thing as "qualified to become such an elector", which is governed only by S93 - basically you just need to be an Australian citizen over the age of 18 who isn't insane or been convicted of treason.
94A(1)(d) has the same rule: "the person intends to resume residing in Australia not later than 6 years after he or she ceased to reside in Australia."
And the argument would be the same one I outlined above.
I know the rule is in S94A, but that's the section that governs actually applying to be placed on the roll, which is not relevant to running for election.
The place that rule isn't is in S93, which is the relevant section.
S94 is the relevant section because it defines eligible overseas electors.
S94(1)(c) gives the 6-year rule and S94A(1)(d) restates it as part of the enrollment procedure.
The relevancy of S94 and S94A for overseas electors is established in Interpretation, 4(1): ""Eligible overseas elector" means an elector who is entitled under section 94 or 95 to be treated as an eligible overseas elector."
When did he leave Australia? He might run afoul of s95(1B):
"An application that is made after the elector ceased to reside in Australia must be made within 3 years after the day on which the elector ceased to reside in Australia."
If questions of residence are in consideration, you would think things would be complicated by his request for asylum from Ecuador. That certainly doesn't suggest he intends to return to Australia in 6 years.
Australian Constitution, s16: "The qualification of a senator shall be the same as those of a member of the House of Representatives."
s34(i): "... must be an elector entitled to vote at the election of members of the House of Representatives, or a person qualified to become such an elector ..."
Australians are allowed to be overseas electors only if they intend to return to Australia within 6 years.
I don't think a court could reasonably conclude that Assange's intention to return would be a serious intention, given that he is going to be under an effectively indefinite house arrest.
Even if he did get elected, he would eventually be evicted for failing to attend sittings.
(Of course, I am not a lawyer or an electoral commissioner).