This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2017/oct/10/citizenship-case-high-court-considers-mps-eligibility-live
The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 8 | Version 9 |
|---|---|
| Citizenship case: high court considers MPs' eligibility – live | Citizenship case: high court considers MPs' eligibility – live |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| 5.53am BST | |
| 05:53 | |
| The (free) judgements are starting to roll in. | |
| I would disqualify them all, except maybe Xenophon, who I reckon tried pretty damn hard. I await my judicial appointment. | |
| Having a quick look at the comments (yes, I lurk) and social media, there seems to be a consensus about ignorance not being an excuse. | |
| But there is every chance the high court will disagree – not necessarily falling on the side of ignorance, but examining whether being granted citizenship by descent, or through a foreign power’s law changes, is something section 44 was meant to cover, and whether it is reasonable that people know to check. | |
| Updated | |
| at 5.54am BST | |
| 5.45am BST | |
| 05:45 | |
| Bennett now going through Italian citizenship law history #Citizenship7 | |
| We are all learning more than we ever needed to about various citizenship laws and how they came to be. | |
| Updated | |
| at 5.52am BST | |
| 5.43am BST | |
| 05:43 | |
| “Unfortunately Senator Canavan at the age of two did not have an understanding of Italian constitutional law,” Bennett says with a drawl. | |
| It’s been a long day. Everyone is doing their best to find the lols where they can. | |
| 5.42am BST | |
| 05:42 | |
| Bennett points out that when Canavan’s mother, Maria, was born, her father had already naturalised as an Australian citizen, and had lost his Italian citizenship. | |
| Then the Italian law changed and Maria, as well as two-year-old Matthew, became Italian citizens by descent, which Bennett refers to as “an event”. | |
| That “event” being the Italian court decided it was discriminatory to limit citizenship by descent to the male line, and women could also pass it on. | |
| Updated | |
| at 5.44am BST | |
| 5.36am BST | |
| 05:36 | |
| Bret Walker finishes and David Bennett picks it up for Matt Canavan | |
| David Bennett thanks Bret Walker and says he has laid out a lot of the case, but focusses in on Matt Canavan who, with his Italian citizenship by descent, has an extra layer of complexity. | |
| Updated | |
| at 5.43am BST | |
| 5.30am BST | |
| 05:30 | |
| The court is attempting to understand what Walker is arguing in regards to knowledge of foreign citizenship, or not turning your mind to the potential for foreign citizenship. | |
| He says the case draws the line at “wilful blindness”. | |
| Updated | |
| at 5.43am BST | |
| 5.27am BST | 5.27am BST |
| 05:27 | 05:27 |
| Reasonable steps are “not your state of mind, it’s what you do,” Walker clarifies under questioning. | |
| Updated | |
| at 5.33am BST | |
| 5.23am BST | 5.23am BST |
| 05:23 | 05:23 |
| “Once one knows then we submit the disqualification rules apply, unless you can point to having done everything you can do reasonably,” Walker says. | “Once one knows then we submit the disqualification rules apply, unless you can point to having done everything you can do reasonably,” Walker says. |
| Walker says the choice of what to do then, before entering parliament, only applies to one who knows they have it. | Walker says the choice of what to do then, before entering parliament, only applies to one who knows they have it. |
| Skyes v Cleary is up again, because that is the case which set out those reasonable steps to divest a candidate of any foreign citizenship political parties have relied on since 1992 when it comes to this stuff. | Skyes v Cleary is up again, because that is the case which set out those reasonable steps to divest a candidate of any foreign citizenship political parties have relied on since 1992 when it comes to this stuff. |
| But Walker is arguing that if you didn’t know you were a foreign citizen, then you couldn’t be expected to take reasonable steps, because you didn’t know they were necessary. | But Walker is arguing that if you didn’t know you were a foreign citizen, then you couldn’t be expected to take reasonable steps, because you didn’t know they were necessary. |
| That is essentially what the government has set out as well. | That is essentially what the government has set out as well. |
| 5.19am BST | 5.19am BST |
| 05:19 | 05:19 |
| Walker, on behalf of his clients, is arguing that section 44 was designed for those who knew of their foreign citizenship and did nothing to renounce it. | Walker, on behalf of his clients, is arguing that section 44 was designed for those who knew of their foreign citizenship and did nothing to renounce it. |
| “It is knowledge of foreign citizenship that is the key. That is the key,” he says, under questioning of the justices. | “It is knowledge of foreign citizenship that is the key. That is the key,” he says, under questioning of the justices. |
| Again, this may be the point that the whole seven cases rest on. | |
| Updated | |
| at 5.32am BST | |
| 5.14am BST | 5.14am BST |
| 05:14 | 05:14 |
| Walker is essentially fleshing out his two main points. First, that citizenship by descent should be considered differently because “it is not like the place of one’s birth” and the different foreign laws which govern who is a citizen by descent and who is not. | Walker is essentially fleshing out his two main points. First, that citizenship by descent should be considered differently because “it is not like the place of one’s birth” and the different foreign laws which govern who is a citizen by descent and who is not. |
| His main second point is if you didn’t know you were a foreign citizen, then you didn’t really have split loyalties and could not have been expected to take the steps to renounce it. So the argument is not so much ignorance of the law, or the constitution, but ignorance of your own citizenship circumstances. | His main second point is if you didn’t know you were a foreign citizen, then you didn’t really have split loyalties and could not have been expected to take the steps to renounce it. So the argument is not so much ignorance of the law, or the constitution, but ignorance of your own citizenship circumstances. |
| Updated | Updated |
| at 5.18am BST | at 5.18am BST |