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/12/mps-dual-citizenship-case-high-court-sits-for-third-day-live
The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Version 2 | Version 3 |
---|---|
Dual citizenship case – live: Roberts being born in India is 'dangerous distraction', court hears | |
(35 minutes later) | |
2.13am BST | |
02:13 | |
Newlinds is going through the history of Australian citizenship which, of course, has to take into account British citizenship – because when the constitution was written in 1901, Australian citizenship did not exist. Everyone was a citizen of the UK and its colonies. | |
Updated | |
at 2.14am BST | |
2.08am BST | |
02:08 | |
The bench is listening to Newlinds’s argument against this notion of natural born Australians. | |
Justice Virginia Bell, with a hint of exasperation, at least to my ears, asks “what are we getting out of this?” | |
Newlinds says he “wants to get in the same boat as Mr Joyce and Senator Nash and then demonstrate I am in a better boat”. | |
The court after some discussion about what relevance the case he is discussing has, mentions that we are in 1898 and have “someway to go” to get to modern law. | |
Newlinds takes us to 1906 | |
Updated | |
at 2.11am BST | |
2.00am BST | |
02:00 | |
We’re being asked to go back in time and are now examining law from “colonial times”. | |
Updated | |
at 2.02am BST | |
1.59am BST | |
01:59 | |
Newlinds is now saying that Roberts being born in India is a “dangerous distraction” because his place of birth is not why he is here, and he could have been born in downtown Parkes, and he would still be here, because the issue is his father was born in Wales. | |
(Sorry for the rambling sentence, but Newlinds is talking very fast and cramming a lot of words into every sentence. His words are swarming like angry bees.) | |
“It should have no part to play and they are only Australian citizens now ... and I even say that it should have no part to play in evidentiary presumption,” Newlinds says about Roberts’s place of birth. He says that is because Roberts did check if he was a citizen of India, and wasn’t, but the problem is the citizenship by descent. | |
Updated | |
at 2.01am BST | |
1.54am BST | |
01:54 | |
Newlinds adopts some of the government’s ‘didn’t know, couldn’t check’ argument. | |
“[It is a] matter of logic that someone who doesn’t know they are a citizen of a foreign power can not take reasonable steps,” he says. | |
... What Mr Roberts did from the time he signed that application was take a two-step approach – the first thing he did was try and work out what the [situation] was, [like any honest and right minded citizen would do]. | |
He took some steps to try and work out what the true answer was to that question and he is criticised heavily [for the wrong emails] but that misunderstands the reasonable steps. | |
Newlinds says that in a few weeks, when he received the knowledge he was a British citizen, he took reasonable steps to renounce it. | |
Updated | |
at 1.58am BST | |
1.50am BST | |
01:50 | |
The high court is being asked to consider Malcolm Roberts’s “state of mind”. | |
Newlinds wants the court to consider: | |
To rebut what is put against us, that is firstly that from every day from 1974 to 2016 Senator Roberts in doing nothing, has somehow voluntarily adopted his British citizenship. When you understand the constitutional and legal context on which he was operating, that is nonsense.” | |
The bench interrupts because “it is just unclear where this argument is taking you”. | |
Newlinds says it is about how by “doing nothing about it, he was somehow voluntarily accepting his Britishness and we reject that”. | |
He then says if Roberts had stood for parliament in 1987, the year after the Australian act, then the Sue v Hill case, (which decided that Britain was a foreign power) could have been decided earlier – and who knows what could have happened. | |
The bench points out they are dealing with a “nomination in 2016”. | |
I’ll remind you that we are only in the first minutes here. | |
Updated | |
at 1.52am BST | |
1.39am BST | 1.39am BST |
01:39 | 01:39 |
This is all being raised because the high court, under cross examination, found Roberts was a dual-citizen when he was elected. | This is all being raised because the high court, under cross examination, found Roberts was a dual-citizen when he was elected. |
1.37am BST | 1.37am BST |
01:37 | 01:37 |
Newlinds is arguing, quite forcibly, that Roberts was “already an Australian national” when he was born and didn’t become naturalised in 1974 –he just “got a certificate”. | |
If you want to know more about that certificate, Stephen Murray has a very good overview here. | |
“In 1974 all that happened was [his father said to a] young Mr Roberts ... I got you this certificate and it was put in the family documents.” | |
Newlinds said there was no evidence Roberts took an oath of allegiance or took an oath renouncing allegiance to anywhere else when he received that certificate. | Newlinds said there was no evidence Roberts took an oath of allegiance or took an oath renouncing allegiance to anywhere else when he received that certificate. |
Updated | |
at 1.43am BST | |
1.32am BST | 1.32am BST |
01:32 | 01:32 |
We have an ‘un-Australian’ reference. Surprised it took almost three days. | We have an ‘un-Australian’ reference. Surprised it took almost three days. |
The counsel for One Nation is taking a stance against the idea that there are natural born Australians and “what ... immigrant Australians?”, which is says is a “fundamentally un-Australian notion”. | The counsel for One Nation is taking a stance against the idea that there are natural born Australians and “what ... immigrant Australians?”, which is says is a “fundamentally un-Australian notion”. |
Updated | Updated |
at 1.36am BST | at 1.36am BST |
1.28am BST | 1.28am BST |
01:28 | 01:28 |
The amicus curiae takes his seat - Malcolm Roberts presents his case | The amicus curiae takes his seat - Malcolm Roberts presents his case |
Robert Newlinds has the floor. | Robert Newlinds has the floor. |
He is going to start with why all the arguments so far been put forward by the government on Malcolm Roberts are wrong. | He is going to start with why all the arguments so far been put forward by the government on Malcolm Roberts are wrong. |
He disagrees that Malcolm Roberts was not natural born, despite being born in India. | He disagrees that Malcolm Roberts was not natural born, despite being born in India. |
He disagrees that Malcolm Roberts needed to be naturalised. | He disagrees that Malcolm Roberts needed to be naturalised. |
He disagrees that Malcolm Roberts was not an Australian citizen in 1974. | He disagrees that Malcolm Roberts was not an Australian citizen in 1974. |
He disagrees that Great Britain was a foreign power in 1974. | He disagrees that Great Britain was a foreign power in 1974. |
He says even though Roberts did not believe he was a British citizen he still took steps to renounce any UK citizenship. | He says even though Roberts did not believe he was a British citizen he still took steps to renounce any UK citizenship. |
Updated | Updated |
at 1.30am BST | at 1.30am BST |
1.23am BST | 1.23am BST |
01:23 | 01:23 |
Kennett is taking aim at the expert report Canavan’s team put forward on Italian citizenship law, which he said was a “surprise” and that it would have been better if it could have been put forward earlier so they could have “crystalised” arguments “much earlier in this process so that something could’ve been done to resolve it”. | Kennett is taking aim at the expert report Canavan’s team put forward on Italian citizenship law, which he said was a “surprise” and that it would have been better if it could have been put forward earlier so they could have “crystalised” arguments “much earlier in this process so that something could’ve been done to resolve it”. |
But he has those arguments now now. And he says there are some issues if the court agrees with the arguments put forward: | But he has those arguments now now. And he says there are some issues if the court agrees with the arguments put forward: |
The high court risks ruling the Italian court was unconstitutional | The high court risks ruling the Italian court was unconstitutional |
Canavan is asking the court to rule on an onus of proof that “someone doesn’t exist” and then “claim victory” on someone who doesn’t exist | Canavan is asking the court to rule on an onus of proof that “someone doesn’t exist” and then “claim victory” on someone who doesn’t exist |
It’s putting all the onus on a foreign law | It’s putting all the onus on a foreign law |
Kennett says Canavan’s grandparents were born in Italy and that is enough of a connection to offer him some of Italy’s protection. | Kennett says Canavan’s grandparents were born in Italy and that is enough of a connection to offer him some of Italy’s protection. |
He says Canavan was made a citizen at birth, through that 1983 Italian law change, at least in the view of an Australian law - that it wasn’t retrospective, that it was a law which was there and expanded. | He says Canavan was made a citizen at birth, through that 1983 Italian law change, at least in the view of an Australian law - that it wasn’t retrospective, that it was a law which was there and expanded. |
That’s because the Italian law used to only apply to the male line, but in 1983, they decided that was discriminatory and expanded it to include the female line. So the law didn’t so much change, as become more inclusive. | That’s because the Italian law used to only apply to the male line, but in 1983, they decided that was discriminatory and expanded it to include the female line. So the law didn’t so much change, as become more inclusive. |
Just a reminder that Kennett has no players on the field here - his job is just to talk about the law that has been brought up, to offer some contrary views, in order to assist the court. | Just a reminder that Kennett has no players on the field here - his job is just to talk about the law that has been brought up, to offer some contrary views, in order to assist the court. |
Updated | Updated |
at 1.28am BST | at 1.28am BST |
1.09am BST | 1.09am BST |
01:09 | 01:09 |
Fiona Nash’s case has just been brought up by Kennett. | Fiona Nash’s case has just been brought up by Kennett. |
Nash is being represented by Bret Walker, who is also representing Barnaby Joyce, but the more higher profile names here - Matt Canavan among them - have taken up most of our attention. | Nash is being represented by Bret Walker, who is also representing Barnaby Joyce, but the more higher profile names here - Matt Canavan among them - have taken up most of our attention. |
She was born in Sydney, but her father (and siblings) were born in the UK. Nash said she believed she needed to take an active step to receive citizenship, which she never did, so did not check her citizenship status before her election. | She was born in Sydney, but her father (and siblings) were born in the UK. Nash said she believed she needed to take an active step to receive citizenship, which she never did, so did not check her citizenship status before her election. |
Kennett tells the court that under his interpretation there was “no doubt” Nash was a British citizen and “on our construction that would be the end of the matter”. | Kennett tells the court that under his interpretation there was “no doubt” Nash was a British citizen and “on our construction that would be the end of the matter”. |
Updated | Updated |
at 1.15am BST | at 1.15am BST |