The full bench of the high court is meeting in Canberra for the second day of the section 44 citizenship cases. Barnaby Joyce, Matt Canavan, Fiona Nash, Malcolm Roberts, Nick Xenophon, Larissa Waters and Scott Ludlam will all have their cases discussed. All the day’s updates, live
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 and 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 and Cleary (to take reasonable steps to renounce)“.
If Sykes and Cleary applies in terms of the qualification than 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.
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 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).
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.