Last day of High Court hearings for MPs involved in citizenship seven cases

THE High Court has said Malcolm Roberts and six other federal MPs may not learn for some time if they will be disqualified from Parliament.

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce is among the citizenship seven arguing their cases in the High Court. Picture: AAP

MALCOLM Roberts and six other federal MPs may not learn for some time if they will be disqualified from Parliament for holding dual citizenship.

The “citizenship seven” High Court case wrapped up today after three days of hearings in Canberra with no indication of when a ruling will be announced.

Chief Justice Susan Kiefel said it went without saying the court recognised the need to have a decision “as soon as possible”,

“It is not always possible,” she said.

Today, One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts’ lawyer has told the High Court his client was a “natural-born Indian” — but that it was just a “dangerous distraction” from the real citizenship case against him.

Barrister Robert Newlinds SC began his case today by declaring senator Roberts was never a dual citizen and the key arguments against him were “wrong and irrelevant”.

He said he would “sweep away” the “false assumptions” and “furphies” about his client raised in court for the past two days.

He declared Senator Roberts was an Australian citizen as soon as he arrived in the country because it was still part of the British Empire at the time.

The fact that he was born in India was not relevant, he said, and nor was the fact he was not a “natural born Australian”.

Senator Malcolm Roberts arrives at the High Court in Canberra. Picture Gary Ramage

Britain wasn’t a “foreign power” at that stage, he said. Subjects could move between the colonies freely, and choose where they wanted to live.

He argued they then became a national of that country while also being a British subject.

The fact Senator Roberts was a “natural-born Indian”, because his place of birth was India, had no relevance to the case, he said.

It was only relevant that Senator Roberts’ father was Welsh.

Mr Newlinds also said the citizenship documents he signed in 1974 were “not a big deal” as they did not give him any rights or duties — such as voting or conscription — that he didn’t already have.

He also rejected the government’s argument that by doing nothing to renounce his British citizenship, Senator Roberts voluntarily retained his citizenship.

Mr Newlands said he meant no disrespect to Justice Keane, who presided over the cross examination of Senator Roberts last month that found he was a British citizen and failed to take reasonable steps to renounce it.

The cross examination “really misfired”, he said, before outlining that he would argue Senator Roberts was constitutionally and legally right when he declared that he thought he was an Australian citizen.

Senator Malcolm Roberts arrives at the High Court in Canberra. Picture: Gary Ramage

Mr Newlinds has also said Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce was in “the same boat” as Senator Roberts as the same arguments could apply to his father, who came to Australia from New Zealand, which was also part of the British Empire at the time.

Mr Newlinds also argued the senator’s state of mind was a significant factor — his belief from 1974 was that he was only an Australian.

His arguments were questioned frequently by the High Court justices, who asked him more than once to make his case faster.

Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue rejected Mr Newlinds argument that Senator Roberts signing citizenship documents in 1974 didn’t change anything.

In his rebuttal this afternoon, the Solicitor-General said even though Roberts was a British subject, he would have been considered an ‘alien’ or immigrant and not an Australian citizen

before he signed the documents due to a law change in 1949.

Outside court, Senator Roberts told reporters he was “very happy” the High Court had heard his case.

“I’m delighted with the case that my legal team put forward,” he said.

“I will leave it entirely and happily in the hands of the High Court.”

Earlier today, the court heard Deputy Nationals leader Fiona Nash should lose her seat because she was a British citizen at the time of her nomination.

Geoffrey Kennett SC, who is acting as amicus or “friend of the court” who provides information but is not related to any case, also advised the court Nationals senator Matt Canavan should be disqualified.

“There appears to be no doubt at the time of her nomination Senator Nash was a British citizen and on our instructions that should be the end of the matter,” Mr Kennett said.

National Senators Fiona Nash and Matthew Canavan. Picture: Evan Morgan

In Senator Canavan’s case, he said the twist revelation that the senator may not actually be Italian after all, revealed by the senator’s lawyer on Monday, required the court to find that a point of Italian law was unconstitutional.

There were major problems with that, he said.

Mr Kennett also said that while the Italian law of conferring citizenship by descent indefinitely was ‘exorbitant’, and so could be disregarded by Section 44(1), it wasn’t reasonable in Senator Canavan’s case because he was only second generation.

Senator Nick Xenophon’s case was more complicated given he had an obscure form of British citizenship, he said.

Mr Kennet conceded he could not absolutely say Senator Xenophon was a citizen of a foreign power.

He also argued that government’s arguments about draft Australian constitution’s informing the current one was an “exercise in rewriting” rather than interpreting.

Barnaby Joyce recently said he didn’t know his father was a Kiwi. Picture: AAP

CITIZENSHIP SCANDAL: Election risks becoming ‘genealogical witch hunt’

Mr Joyce and his Nationals colleagues Fiona Nash and Matt Canavan have all argued they should be spared the court’s wrath. So too has crossbench senator Nick Xenophon.

But the lawyer for former Greens senators Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters says the pair were right to resign, and argued the other five ought follow suit.