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/11/mps-dual-citizenship-case-high-court-sits-for-second-day-live

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 7 Version 8
MPs' dual citizenship case: high court sits for second day – live MPs' dual citizenship case: high court sits for second day – live
(35 minutes later)
5.49am BST
05:49
Windsor's counsel rests
But we still have some time to go until we get to the last of these cases - Malcolm Roberts, with the court calling upon Geoffrey Kennett, who is acting as the amicus curiae.
His job is not to act for anyone in particular, but help test the law, essentially providing an impartial, and often broader interpretation of the laws being debated by either counsel, to help give the court some context, or clear up some issues which may have been hinted at, but not expanded upon during arguments.
In other words, it is the really, really dry parts of the legal argument.
5.39am BST
05:39
Merkel is summing up now – and he, like Gleeson, has made it through his submission with relatively few interruptions from the bench.
It is for those reasons that we say that the question should be answered in Mr Joyce’s case ... that his election should be completely void because by section 44 (i) he was incapable of being elected or sitting.
Merkel doesn’t drop a microphone, but his final full stop is felt.
That doesn’t meant the court will accept his arguments though.
Updated
at 5.45am BST
5.35am BST
05:35
Fleshing out his argument now, Merkel says the history of section 44 was because of a concern over duelling allegiances.
Gleeson had already laid out the case that split allegiances had nothing to do with feeling and everything to do with the status of citizenship.
Merkel is now laying section 44’s history on top of that, and said other sections of the constitution also deal with allegiance.
He says they didn’t write the word “knowingly” into section 44 (1) which is what the government is arguing should be the case.
Updated
at 5.39am BST
5.24am BST
05:24
Merkel is arguing that the government’s submission would, if accepted, enact a change of “significant consequence” for how section 44 is interpreted and the authors of the constitution did intend for it to be, well, fairly literal.
There is simply no warrant ... to read in concepts which are not really known in this area of law and totally contrary to hundreds of years [to the nature of the law which is apparent].
Updated
at 5.35am BST
5.14am BST5.14am BST
05:1405:14
Ron Merkel has taken over the case on behalf of Windsor.Ron Merkel has taken over the case on behalf of Windsor.
He is all about section 44. We are now getting the contrary history of section 44.He is all about section 44. We are now getting the contrary history of section 44.
That has come about because of the amount of time spent on the history of section 44 yesterday by the government and Joyce and Nash’s counsel, where they argued that those who wrote the constitution never meant for the section to be applied this way.That has come about because of the amount of time spent on the history of section 44 yesterday by the government and Joyce and Nash’s counsel, where they argued that those who wrote the constitution never meant for the section to be applied this way.
Merkel argues they did intend to section 44 to stop dual citizens and if they didn’t, they could have changed other sections to clarify that. Merkel argues they did intend section 44 to stop dual citizens and if they didn’t, they could have changed other sections to clarify that.
Updated
at 5.36am BST
5.04am BST5.04am BST
05:0405:04
Back on allegiance and why it matters.Back on allegiance and why it matters.
Gleeson is talking about how a parliamentarian with dual nationality with New Zealand, especially a minister, could face conflict when issues regarding New Zealand were being discussed, which, given the close nature of Australia and New Zealand’s relationship, is not outside the realm of possibility -placing doubt over loyalties. Gleeson is talking about how a parliamentarian with dual nationality with New Zealand, especially a minister, could face conflict when issues regarding New Zealand were being discussed, which, given the close nature of Australia and New Zealand’s relationship, is not outside the realm of possibility 0– placing doubt over loyalties.
He said that allowing the argument of ‘I didn’t check, so I didn’t know’ would create a situation: He said that allowing the argument of “I didn’t check, so I didn’t know” would create a situation:
where the parliament may consist of any number of dual citizens...if a person is diligent and makes enquiries to their status and acquires appropriate advice...they hit the trip wire of knowledge, they face the horns of dilemma....but if not....a person is perfectly entitled to say I rest on the knowledge of no knowledge of my citizenship where the parliament may consist of any number of dual citizens ... if a person is diligent and makes enquiries to their status and acquires appropriate advice ... they hit the tripwire of knowledge, they face the horns of dilemma ... but if not ... a person is perfectly entitled to say I rest on the knowledge of no knowledge of my citizenship.
He says that will provoke the community,the media and other political opponents to go on a search for conflicts, creating a “sequence” like we have seen this year. He says that will provoke the community, the media and other political opponents to go on a search for conflicts, creating a “sequence” like we have seen this year.
He concludes his argument with a summation of their main foundation - that if someone wishes to stand for parliament, they should make the appropriate enquiries first and if they are elected, “they sit in the parliament with the undivided loyalty that the constitution demands”. He concludes his argument with a summation of their main foundation – that if someone wishes to stand for parliament, they should make the appropriate enquiries first and if they are elected, “they sit in the parliament with the undivided loyalty that the constitution demands”.
Updated
at 5.38am BST
4.52am BST4.52am BST
04:5204:52
Gleeson is saying the only dual-citizenship which should be accepted, are those “extreme” cases, where you try to get out “and you can’t”.Gleeson is saying the only dual-citizenship which should be accepted, are those “extreme” cases, where you try to get out “and you can’t”.
That’s for countries such as Iran, which don’t acknowledge attempts to renounce citizenship. Sam Dastyari has been very public in recent months about how he spent $25,000 in his attempts to renounce any claim to Iranian citizenship, so, if needed, he could show the high court he had taken all reasonable steps to renounce that citizenship.That’s for countries such as Iran, which don’t acknowledge attempts to renounce citizenship. Sam Dastyari has been very public in recent months about how he spent $25,000 in his attempts to renounce any claim to Iranian citizenship, so, if needed, he could show the high court he had taken all reasonable steps to renounce that citizenship.
UpdatedUpdated
at 4.54am BSTat 4.54am BST
4.49am BST4.49am BST
04:4904:49
Laying out his case, Gleeson points out that Joyce was a citizen of New Zealand when he was elected, that he did not take the steps necessary to check whether he had any conflicts, that New Zealand law was not “exorbitant” and was known it could be passed on, and that when the constitution was written, there was an awareness of the issues that dual citizenship could present.Laying out his case, Gleeson points out that Joyce was a citizen of New Zealand when he was elected, that he did not take the steps necessary to check whether he had any conflicts, that New Zealand law was not “exorbitant” and was known it could be passed on, and that when the constitution was written, there was an awareness of the issues that dual citizenship could present.
He says that it is “clearly evident” that into the 20th century, citizenship by descent was accepted by law.He says that it is “clearly evident” that into the 20th century, citizenship by descent was accepted by law.
There was a ready means under the law of NZ to renounce his citizenship without onerous conditionsThere was a ready means under the law of NZ to renounce his citizenship without onerous conditions
And the final fact is by the relevant date he had taken no steps [to renounce].And the final fact is by the relevant date he had taken no steps [to renounce].
And on that basis, Gleeson says, there is no reason “to qualify or disapply” the general rule of recognition, or distinguish between natural born and foreign born citizens.And on that basis, Gleeson says, there is no reason “to qualify or disapply” the general rule of recognition, or distinguish between natural born and foreign born citizens.
In Gleeson’s argument, Joyce knew his father was born in New Zealand, the New Zealand law was known, in so far as people knew they could inherit citizenship, the process to shed yourself of that citizenship was fairly easy and he should have checked before he was elected but he didn’t.In Gleeson’s argument, Joyce knew his father was born in New Zealand, the New Zealand law was known, in so far as people knew they could inherit citizenship, the process to shed yourself of that citizenship was fairly easy and he should have checked before he was elected but he didn’t.
UpdatedUpdated
at 4.52am BSTat 4.52am BST
4.37am BST4.37am BST
04:3704:37
Gleeson is now moving on to how Sykes v Cleary and Sue v Hill fit into his argument.Gleeson is now moving on to how Sykes v Cleary and Sue v Hill fit into his argument.
Sykes v Cleary is the case which reminded political parties about section 44 and saw the high court set down some rules around it.Sykes v Cleary is the case which reminded political parties about section 44 and saw the high court set down some rules around it.
Sue v Hill was the 1999 case involving a One Nation Senator (Heather Hill) who did not take reasonable steps to shed her UK citizenship before her election to the Senate. It decided, that for all intents and purposes, England was a foreign power to Australia.Sue v Hill was the 1999 case involving a One Nation Senator (Heather Hill) who did not take reasonable steps to shed her UK citizenship before her election to the Senate. It decided, that for all intents and purposes, England was a foreign power to Australia.
It was also the case that Pauline Hanson’s chief advisor, James Ashby pointed to when denying Malcolm Roberts had any citizen conflicts as “we learnt from the Heather HIll case, so weren’t going to fall for that a second time”.It was also the case that Pauline Hanson’s chief advisor, James Ashby pointed to when denying Malcolm Roberts had any citizen conflicts as “we learnt from the Heather HIll case, so weren’t going to fall for that a second time”.
Malcolm Roberts’s case will be discussed once Gleeson concludes.Malcolm Roberts’s case will be discussed once Gleeson concludes.
UpdatedUpdated
at 4.40am BSTat 4.40am BST
4.27am BST4.27am BST
04:2704:27
Welcome backWelcome back
Justin Gleeson, on behalf of Tony Windsor who is challenging Barnaby Joyce’s eligibility still has the floor.Justin Gleeson, on behalf of Tony Windsor who is challenging Barnaby Joyce’s eligibility still has the floor.
He picks up where he left off before the lunch break and completes his argument on foreign allegiance.He picks up where he left off before the lunch break and completes his argument on foreign allegiance.
When we left off, the court was raising the argument, put forward in other cases, that you can’t have split loyalties, if you didn’t know one of those loyalties existed.When we left off, the court was raising the argument, put forward in other cases, that you can’t have split loyalties, if you didn’t know one of those loyalties existed.
Gleeson submits that no – the split loyalty exists with the dual-citizenship, despite how you feel.Gleeson submits that no – the split loyalty exists with the dual-citizenship, despite how you feel.
It comes down to what the court decides section 44 was created for – was it to prevent split allegiances, regardless of whether a person knew they were a foreign citizen or not, or was it created to prevent parliamentarians from knowingly splitting their allegiances.It comes down to what the court decides section 44 was created for – was it to prevent split allegiances, regardless of whether a person knew they were a foreign citizen or not, or was it created to prevent parliamentarians from knowingly splitting their allegiances.
UpdatedUpdated
at 4.31am BSTat 4.31am BST
2.46am BST2.46am BST
02:4602:46
The court adjourns for lunchThe court adjourns for lunch
And with that, we are on break.And with that, we are on break.
We’ll see you back just after 2pm.We’ll see you back just after 2pm.
Any questions in the mean time – find me at @amyremeikis and I’ll do my best to answer as I gulp down some more coffee.Any questions in the mean time – find me at @amyremeikis and I’ll do my best to answer as I gulp down some more coffee.
UpdatedUpdated
at 2.54am BSTat 2.54am BST
2.44am BST2.44am BST
02:4402:44
The high court is now talking about feelings.The high court is now talking about feelings.
In an argument which is sure to make Malcolm Roberts’s ears prick up, the bench is asking about whether allegiance is a “feeling” and, if you don’t know you are a citizen, then you can’t feel that allegiance. It’s based on a prior argument from a section 44 case.In an argument which is sure to make Malcolm Roberts’s ears prick up, the bench is asking about whether allegiance is a “feeling” and, if you don’t know you are a citizen, then you can’t feel that allegiance. It’s based on a prior argument from a section 44 case.
Gleeson says the “disability arises from the status – the status applies allegiance”. He argues that to shed that allegiance, one must renounce the citizenship – or at least take steps to do so.Gleeson says the “disability arises from the status – the status applies allegiance”. He argues that to shed that allegiance, one must renounce the citizenship – or at least take steps to do so.
Joyce, he argues, did not. Bret Walker argued yesterday, on behalf of Barnaby Joyce and Fiona Nash that if you didn’t know you were a citizen of another nation, then you couldn’t have a split loyalty.Joyce, he argues, did not. Bret Walker argued yesterday, on behalf of Barnaby Joyce and Fiona Nash that if you didn’t know you were a citizen of another nation, then you couldn’t have a split loyalty.
Gleeson, disagrees.Gleeson, disagrees.
Mr Walker says this all hinges on felt allegiance... ‘I can’t feel it if I don’t know it’ – that his is case.Mr Walker says this all hinges on felt allegiance... ‘I can’t feel it if I don’t know it’ – that his is case.
Our case is what section 44 has done is seize on the status.Our case is what section 44 has done is seize on the status.
Gleeson argues that section 44 was not set out as an inquiry into the particular laws adopted by a foreign nation, or what someone thinks or feels or knows, but that the “fact of the allegiance is what creates the risk you will not have the single allegiance to the parliament of Australia”.Gleeson argues that section 44 was not set out as an inquiry into the particular laws adopted by a foreign nation, or what someone thinks or feels or knows, but that the “fact of the allegiance is what creates the risk you will not have the single allegiance to the parliament of Australia”.
UpdatedUpdated
at 2.54am BSTat 2.54am BST
2.29am BST
02:29
Gleeson’s argument, on behalf of Windsor, is based on what they say is no applicable exception for Joyce under section 44. It is complimentary to what Walters was saying on behalf of Waters and Ludlam – that in situations where someone knows they have a foreign-born parent, than “he or she ought prior to nominating as a candidate for election to parliament, make enquiries and then renounce any foreign citizenship held”.
The bench is largely quiet – there have been a couple of questions over the issue of natural-born Australians v foreign-born Australians (which, as we know, was not covered in Sykes v Cleary and has been one of the sticking points) and how Gleeson interprets it.
Gleeson’s manner is relaxed and steady, and answers questions in the same tone of voice one would use to explain an operating system to a new colleague.
Updated
at 2.31am BST
2.20am BST
02:20
Gleeson gets straight to the point – he says that Joyce should have taken reasonable steps before the most recent election (and, one could argue every election before 2004, when he was first elected as a Queensland senator) and didn’t, and was therefore ineligible.
Updated
at 2.23am BST
2.19am BST
02:19
Walters rests. Former SG begins argument for Tony Windsor
Well, that was a whirlwind.
But Brian Walters has concluded. And a familiar face has the floor – former solicitor general Justin Gleeson is representing Tony Windsor in his challenge against Barnaby Joyce.
A murmur of recognition filters through the overflow court – the breakdown of Gleeson’s relationship with the attorney general, George Brandis, has become the stuff of legend.
Updated
at 2.22am BST
2.10am BST
02:10
Walters is arguing his clients’ case – that they were both in the wrong.
He says they acknowledge that they both should have done their checks, despite thinking that naturalisation extinguished any foreign citizenship. It comes back to what he is arguing is reasonable for a person to check before signing the candidate’s form declaring they were eligible to be elected.
Updated
at 2.14am BST
2.03am BST
02:03
Walters said there was “no reason in principle” for the reasonable-steps test to be differentiated between foreign-born and Australian-born citizens.
He is again asked about its relevancy to Sykes v Cleary and how it applies here. He said that’s the same issue the attorney general had, as “it seems to be accepted by the attorney general that if one has some knowledge of foreign citizenship status ... albeit, one was born in Australia and has it by descent, then one still has the obligation under Sykes v Cleary [to take reasonable steps to renounce]”.
If Sykes v Cleary applies in terms of the qualification, then it must apply in terms of reasonable steps to any person who has knowledge of the facts ought to have prompted proper enquiry
Candidates – nominees for the high office of the parliamentarian – have a duty at [least at a] general level to comply with the constitution.
He says that “crystallises in a certain act” when they nominate – by signing the candidate form, which says they comply with section 44.
It is a simple task that should not be overlooked to make inquiries ... not merely [to be] honest, but accurate or, should we say, that they are diligent to be accurate or careful to be accurate.
If one is to give a coherent interpretation to the section as it has been applied to for Sykes v Cleary, which was relied upon for Sue v Hill ... then it is our submission [that] it is difficult to see where one can avoid a situation where a person who knows facts that could relate to a potential conflict with section 44 and doesn’t take steps to address it, [flies in the face of the reasonable-steps precedent].
Updated
at 2.11am BST
1.48am BST
01:48
The bench is asking Walters whether he is asking the court to take a “literal interpretation” of section 44.
He says that he is dealing with what was set down by Sykes v Cleary.
The bench jumps in again to point out that Sykes did not deal with the same situation, in that it was looking at a case where the foreign citizenship was known – not natural-born Australians who have received citizenship by descent.
Walters concedes that is true. But he falls back on the reasonable-steps argument that was set down by the 92 case – and that none of these MPs took those reasonable steps.
He says the attorney general has accepted that the MPs involved had foreign citizenship conflicts in his submission, and Ludlam and Waters argue they should have taken reasonable steps.
But Kiefel says again the case was different, because in Sykes, they knew. And the bench, in that case, did not address the “question of knowledge”.
This is where we get into the new law these cases could be creating.
Updated
at 1.52am BST
1.39am BST
01:39
Walters has found his flow again. He, with a little laugh, accepted that the court “can’t vindicate our clients” (and indeed, that is not his arguments intention, although I’m sure the Greens would be happy to take a little vindication if it is on offer) and has moved on to arguing section 44 and assisting the court in its interpretation of section 44 – providing the contrary view to what we have heard so far.
The foundation of this argument seems to be that “negligence should never produce a more favourable result than diligence”.
Updated
at 1.47am BST
1.33am BST
01:33
Walters seems a little shaken.
The justices, led by Kiefel, have cut down any arguments that his clients were right, as not a particularly good use of the court’s time.
His arguments based over whether the MPs should have known to have at least investigate their circumstances (he is not suggesting the MPs were not honest when they submitted they had no idea of citizenship conflicts, but that they were careless because they had reason to check, given their families’ backgrounds) have been all but dismissed.
The bench wants law, not subjective examples – that is the take-away.
It’s a strange position to be in – while everyone else before the court is making cases for why they should be found eligible to have been elected, the Greens are arguing they were ineligible – and therefore everyone else is as well.
Updated
at 1.50am BST
1.22am BST
01:22
The court seems a little confused over these arguments – and whether Walters is asking for the court to find his clients were negligent.
Updated
at 1.27am BST
1.20am BST
01:20
Walters says that Ludlam knew he had been born in New Zealand (he naturalised as an Australian as a teenager) and Waters knew she had been born in Canada (she left when she was 11 months old).
He brings that up, because he is arguing that there are reasonable expectations for MPs to check before they nominate.
He then asks “what is reasonable” for someone to know, in regards to their family history.
The bench is giving him a fairly hard time. They are hammering every point Walters is making.
Kiefel cuts in again: “Is it a proper use of this court’s time to argue for a vindication of their correctness?”
Updated
at 1.48am BST