WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY:
PROFESSOR GEORGE WILLIAMS (UNSW Law):
"The key question is the meaning that the High Court attributes to the words 'subject or a citizen ... of a foreign power' in section 44 of the constitution. The current interpretation, developed in 1992 in Sykes v Cleary is not favourable to the seven challenged parliamentarians. In that case, the court ruled two people could not stand for parliament, despite them being ignorant of the fact that they were in breach of section 44 due to holding dual citizenship.
"It is very difficult to see that all seven can survive, given that the commonwealth itself is arguing that Senators (Scott) Ludlum and (Malcolm) Roberts should be disqualified.
"The result will have implications not just for these seven parliamentarians, but for others as well."
CHERYL SAUNDERS (Melbourne Law School):
"The use of history to interpret section 44 is complicated by the fact that in 1900 there was no separate Australian citizenship, that people in many different parts of the world were 'subjects' of the same 'power' as Australia, and that dual citizenship was less usual then than it is now.
"The court has previously said that the citizenship laws of another country cannot dictate the question of who is eligible to stand for elected office at the commonwealth level. The consideration that led to the idea that candidates must make reasonable efforts to renounce their citizenship.
"It is hard to predict what the court will do with the claim that MPs were unaware of their citizenship status. Should they have made reasonable efforts to make themselves aware? And if other countries alter their dual citizenship qualifications from time to time, is it reasonable to expect Australian candidates to be alert to this?
"It is desirable that whatever conclusion the court reaches, it applies in an even-handed way to people who acquired their Australian citizenship by descent and those who have been naturalised (or whose families were naturalised)."
Share
