The High Court Rules for Simple English

In handing down its decision on the fate of the seven dual citizen MPs today the High Court preferred a simple textual interpretation of the wording of s44(i) of the Australian Constitution meaning that all bar two of the MPs were found to be a subject or citizen of a foreign power at the time of their nomination for the 2016 federal election and that each was therefore incapable of being chosen or sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

The Commonwealth Attorney General had argued for a construction of s44(i) which inferred ‘voluntariness’ on the part of the member in seeking or retaining dual citizenship as being necessary to consideration of eligibility or otherwise of being chosen or sitting as a member.  The argument seeking to introduce a mental aspect of intent was arguably a creative one given the construction of the provision and one that has ultimately failed to find favour with the bench. The approach was possibly driven my necessity given the number of government MPs captured by the unprecedented citizenship conundrum and would have represented a significant precedent if supported, given that case law relating to provisions of the Constitution are not known for changing much or very often.

The High Court, informed by the arguments of Mr Tony Windsor and an especially appointed amicus curiae,  was unpersuaded by the argument led by the Commonwealth and found that a literal interpretation of the wording of s44(i) accords more closely to the ordinary and natural meaning of the language, the majority views of precedential cases and that the drafting history of the provision doesn’t warrant a different conclusion.

“Laws are the sovereigns of sovereigns.”

 Louis XIV

Senator Canavan and Senator Xenophon retain their seats because neither was found to be a citizen of a foreign power or entitled to the rights and privileges extended to citizens of a foreign power.

Justice doesn’t just happen.

Be Engaged. Be Informed. Be Curious.

Subscribe to The True Justice today.


One comment

  1. What I would like to know is, how did this eventuate in the first place? With all the checks, documents to complete, rules and regulations to be adhered to before been signed off, obviously someone wasn’t doing their job in an effective and efficient manner and still retaining their enormous salary and bonuses. But then we can’t really expect much better. Standards and integrity started disappearing in the mid eighties and has continued in a downward spiral. Trouble doesn’t start at the bottom, it starts at the top where taxpayers expect principal, integrity, honesty and fairness. Not too much of that happening anymore so perhaps the powers-to-be were aware of the citizenship of each member, but chose to take the risk to suit their own agenda, which appears to have back-fired to some extent. With the cast of thousands networking system, and in this modern era of technology where nothing is private, it beggars belief that this incident could have occurred accidentally. Another case of No True Justice.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s