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 BST5.24am BST
05:2405:24
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”. I should stop using that word.
He says that a week after Waters 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. 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 BST5.18am BST
05:1805:18
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.
UpdatedUpdated
at 5.22am BSTat 5.22am BST
5.12am BST5.12am BST
05:1205:12
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.
UpdatedUpdated
at 5.15am BSTat 5.15am BST
5.04am BST5.04am BST
05:0405:04
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.
UpdatedUpdated
at 5.08am BSTat 5.08am BST
4.59am BST4.59am BST
04:5904:59
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.
UpdatedUpdated
at 5.06am BSTat 5.06am BST
4.54am BST
04:54
Donaghue is now talking about what Edmund Barton, Australia’s first prime minister and one of the drafters of the constitution, was thinking.
For a recap on how section 44 came to be, as it is, here is a nice wrap from the ABC
Updated
at 5.05am BST
4.50am BST
04:50
We are back in the 1800s and the colonial conferences which were held to discuss the Australian constitution.
Again, Donaghue argues they did not intend for parliamentarians who did nothing to receive foreign citizenship to be ineligible for parliament.
Updated
at 5.05am BST
4.45am BST
04:45
Donaghue says the historical law is “inconsistent” when it comes to foreign law obligations, that in all the drafts of the constitution up until 1898 or so, the provision as drafted “clearly was not concerned to stop someone with the status of dual citizen” to sit within the parliament. The target, he says, was to stop someone from “voluntarily” taking on dual citizenship.
This is a throwback to the argument of what the constitution authors actually meant when they drafted section 44.
Updated
at 4.53am BST
4.39am BST
04:39
Donaghue is back and arguing on foreign citizenship laws, which he says are “exorbitant” in that it goes back for so many generations.
He is again arguing that interpreting section 44 literally – or taking a hardline approach to it – would disqualify a large proportion of the Australian population from being dual citizens.
One could argue that it actually wouldn’t, because anyone who wants to be a member of parliament could just renounce their citizenship conflict, but that is not in line with the government’s case.
And we are hearing the “political weapon” argument again, about people who couldn’t know, for example someone who didn’t know their father or was adopted, and then they suddenly find they have dual citizenship.
To my mind, that argument still falls down because of the lack of name on a birth certificate, but I am not a lawyer.
Updated
at 4.52am BST
4.30am BST
04:30
Robert Newlinds rests
It’s time for the submissions in reply.
Solicitor general Stephen Donaghue, who Kiefel mistakenly refers to as the attorney, before correcting herself, is up first to respond to the arguments that have been put to the court that don’t marry up with the Commonwealth’s case.
Updated
at 4.35am BST
4.28am BST
04:28
Newlinds is rushing through the rest of his argument now, giving it, basically, in dot points.
He concludes that in 1974, when Roberts received his certificate (which they reject was naturalisation) confirming his Australian citizenship, he was right to believe he was only Australian.
“He was entitled to put that question out of his mind and get on with his life as the years went by,” Newlinds said.
“Come 2016 his state of mind was the same – that he was Australian – but it is only that he gets the letter from the home office that he has the frame of mind [to know he is a dual citizen] and the steps he took from that moment ought to be reasonable.”
Newlinds said based on those facts, the court should accept that Roberts is in exactly the same position as Joyce and Nash – there is no differential in situations, despite what the government contends.
He goes a bit further.
“He was not disqualified when he was chosen and he has not been disqualified when he was sitting because he took the reasonable steps [to renounce as soon as he knew].
Newlinds takes his seat.
Updated
at 4.33am BST
4.22am BST
04:22
Newlinds is arguing Roberts did take reasonable steps – as soon as he had “knowledge” of his dual-citizenship.
Roberts did not renounce until five months or so after the election, but Newlinds is arguing he didn’t receive the knowledge that he was a British citizen until after the nomination.
“It must be actual knowledge or nothing,” says Newlinds, in terms of Sykes v Cleary.
Updated
at 4.24am BST
4.19am BST
04:19
Newlinds is turning his attention to “wilful blindness” and says Roberts was not wilfully blind, as he had no knowledge.
He adopts Bret Walker’s position – who was arguing on behalf of Barnaby Joyce and Fiona Nash – that if you didn’t know, you couldn’t be expected to check. So it was not wilful blindness, it was a case of no knowledge, Newlinds argues
Updated
at 4.23am BST
4.17am BST
04:17
The court is back in session
And Justice Kiefel has just informed Newlinds he has 15 minutes left.
Updated
at 4.17am BST
2.44am BST
02:44
The court breaks for lunch
We are moving on to Sykes v Cleary, and the 20th century, but we are now on break until 2.15.
I imagine there will be quite the need for some strong cups of coffee, or a strong something, after this morning’s events.
Barrister: By 2016 times have changed and the red line moved or the world moved around Roberts in a way not reasonable for him to understand
More to come in the afternoon session.
Updated
at 2.46am BST