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 6 | Version 7 |
|---|---|
| Dual citizenship case – live: Roberts's birthplace a 'dangerous distraction' | Dual citizenship case – live: Roberts's birthplace a 'dangerous distraction' |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| 5.58am BST | |
| 05:58 | |
| Citizenship, including foreign citizenship can be “indelible”, Walker says. | |
| But he doesn’t believe that foreign citizenship, which has not been voluntarily obtained or retained, leads to split loyalties. | |
| All this talk about loyalties and allegiances comes back to what the authors’ of the constitution meant by section 44. | |
| And it comes back to the new law this court could potentially create, if they find in favour of the government MPs et al. That would narrow section 44 (i) quite considerably. | |
| 5.53am BST | |
| 05:53 | |
| Paul Karp has written up an excellent account of Malcolm Roberts’s state of mind, and why his counsel said it mattered, if you need another hit. | |
| Updated | |
| at 5.57am BST | |
| 5.49am BST | |
| 05:49 | |
| Matt Canavan's case has concluded | |
| Nick Xenophon’s counsel chooses not to submit anything in reply. | |
| Bret Walker is back, arguing again for Barnaby Joyce and Fiona Nash. | |
| Updated | |
| at 5.56am BST | |
| 5.47am BST | |
| 05:47 | |
| Bennett says they are not asking the court to find the Italian law unconstitutional; which was a point brought up by the friend of the court. | |
| He also says nothing which has been put forward by anyone has affected the case he put forward. | |
| He again contends that there is debate over whether Canavan was ever an Italian citizen, that he never believed he was an Italian citizen and he did all he could to never become one, because he decided not to fill out the documents his mother told him about in 2006. | |
| He asks the court to be as quick as it can in its decision and, if possible, to put forward its decision and publish reasons later. At the pleasure of the court of course. | |
| Updated | |
| at 5.56am BST | |
| 5.42am BST | |
| 05:42 | |
| Bennett again addresses Windsor’s case and says Canavan not only had no split allegiances, he couldn’t have been called on by Italy to do anything. “How could Italy have forced anything?” he asks. | |
| Updated | |
| at 5.43am BST | |
| 5.35am BST | |
| 05:35 | |
| Bennett essentially argues that not everyone can be expected to know their citizenship status. That is directed at some of the arguments from Justin Gleeson and Ron Merkel that a lot of what we have heard about citizenship is common knowledge within the public. | |
| Bennett says that perception can not be considered the whole perception. | |
| He also takes aim at allegiance and brings up how Catholics, who technically owe allegiance to the Vatican, are not seen as having split loyalties, with a case which attempted to test that thrown out for being “frivolous”. | |
| Updated | |
| at 5.38am BST | |
| 5.31am BST | |
| 05:31 | |
| The SG rests and David Bennett on behalf of Matt Canavan is back | |
| Bennett also has some things he would like to say in reply to what has been raised. | |
| Bennett is also taking aim at this idea of knowledge of one’s circumstances. He says that is not a fair test. | |
| In my case of course, Senator Canavan on the evidence believed he was entitled to obtain Italian citizenship if he chose to fill out and lodge a form. He chose not to fill in and lodge the form and in his mind was not an Italian citizen. | |
| Bennett says it is “not fair to take a little bit of that and say, ’Oh he knew there was a connection,’” and then use that to say he was not eligible. | |
| Updated | |
| at 5.36am BST | |
| 5.25am BST | |
| 05:25 | |
| Just on timing, we have about an hour to go, as far as high court hours are concerned. There are still some more submissions in reply to go. | |
| So the court may need to sit a bit longer. We could be back here tomorrow morning. Won’t that be exciting? | |
| Updated | |
| at 5.34am BST | |
| 5.24am BST | 5.24am BST |
| 05:24 | 05:24 |
| Larissa Waters, who was born in Canada is different, Donaghue says, because if she was not an Australian citizen at birth, she would have been stateless. | Larissa Waters, who was born in Canada is different, Donaghue says, because if she was not an Australian citizen at birth, she would have been stateless. |
| “The fact is she was a Canadian citizen from the moment of birth,” Bell says. | “The fact is she was a Canadian citizen from the moment of birth,” Bell says. |
| Donaghue says that is because of a “quirk” of Canadian citizenship law, and then stops himself and says: | Donaghue says that is because of a “quirk” of Canadian citizenship law, and then stops himself and says: |
| I should stop using that word. | |
| He says a week after Waters’s birth, unfortunately for her, the law was changed to something which would not have given her Canadian citizenship, the argument being that a week later, if she was not Australian, she could well have been stateless. And that is why they consider her to be in the same boat, to borrow from Newlinds, as Nick Xenophon, Barnaby Joyce, Fiona Nash and Matt Canavan, who were all born in Australia. | |
| Updated | |
| at 5.34am BST | |
| 5.18am BST | 5.18am BST |
| 05:18 | 05:18 |
| Donaghue is being asked whether he considers Roberts to be a naturalised Australian, as far as their argument goes. | Donaghue is being asked whether he considers Roberts to be a naturalised Australian, as far as their argument goes. |
| He says, yes, he would expand the argument of natural born Australian v naturalised Australian to include Roberts. | He says, yes, he would expand the argument of natural born Australian v naturalised Australian to include Roberts. |
| The government is arguing Roberts and Scott Ludlam should be differentiated from the other cases, because for all intents and purposes they became Australian citizens later – Roberts in 74 and Ludlam when he was a teenager – and that should have given them the extra push to check their status before they nominated to run for parliament. | The government is arguing Roberts and Scott Ludlam should be differentiated from the other cases, because for all intents and purposes they became Australian citizens later – Roberts in 74 and Ludlam when he was a teenager – and that should have given them the extra push to check their status before they nominated to run for parliament. |
| Updated | Updated |
| at 5.22am BST | at 5.22am BST |
| 5.12am BST | 5.12am BST |
| 05:12 | 05:12 |
| Back to Sykes v Cleary. Donaghue says it should only be understood to apply to a naturalised person and does not have a position on natural born Australian citizens. | Back to Sykes v Cleary. Donaghue says it should only be understood to apply to a naturalised person and does not have a position on natural born Australian citizens. |
| He says that is in line with the court looking at the purpose of split allegiances and what was meant by section 44 (i). | He says that is in line with the court looking at the purpose of split allegiances and what was meant by section 44 (i). |
| That’s a throwback to the argument that your allegiance can not be split if you don’t know that conflict exists. | That’s a throwback to the argument that your allegiance can not be split if you don’t know that conflict exists. |
| There is not a lot new here, but the purpose of submissions in reply is to clarify what everyone else has said about your case. | There is not a lot new here, but the purpose of submissions in reply is to clarify what everyone else has said about your case. |
| Updated | Updated |
| at 5.15am BST | at 5.15am BST |
| 5.04am BST | 5.04am BST |
| 05:04 | 05:04 |
| Donaghue gets to the arguments from Malcolm Roberts’s counsel and says history lesson aside, Roberts would have been considered an alien under Australian law until 1974, rejecting the idea that the certificate was a change of label. He basically says it was a change of status. | Donaghue gets to the arguments from Malcolm Roberts’s counsel and says history lesson aside, Roberts would have been considered an alien under Australian law until 1974, rejecting the idea that the certificate was a change of label. He basically says it was a change of status. |
| He also expresses some confusion over what the moment by moment description of Roberts’s citizenship has to do with the case, that it only matters what his status was in 2016 when he nominated for the Senate. | He also expresses some confusion over what the moment by moment description of Roberts’s citizenship has to do with the case, that it only matters what his status was in 2016 when he nominated for the Senate. |
| Updated | Updated |
| at 5.08am BST | at 5.08am BST |
| 4.59am BST | 4.59am BST |
| 04:59 | 04:59 |
| Tony Windsor’s counsel had argued it doesn’t matter how you feel about your citizenship allegiance, the very status meant a foreign power could have power over you, for example, with military service. | Tony Windsor’s counsel had argued it doesn’t matter how you feel about your citizenship allegiance, the very status meant a foreign power could have power over you, for example, with military service. |
| Dongahue says that approach would also mean anyone who met the reasonable steps test to renounce, but were unable to in those cases where countries don’t acknowledge the renouncement, could also potentially be called upon by those powers. | Dongahue says that approach would also mean anyone who met the reasonable steps test to renounce, but were unable to in those cases where countries don’t acknowledge the renouncement, could also potentially be called upon by those powers. |
| Updated | Updated |
| at 5.06am BST | at 5.06am BST |