Three days of High Court hearings in Canberra did little to clarify the eligibility of the seven MPs and senators caught up in the section 44 citizenship imbroglio.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
When the court adjourned on Thursday afternoon, the situation appeared even more confused than before.
The bench was presented with a broad range of sometimes contradictory arguments from solicitors and barristers representing Deputy Prime Minister and Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce, Nationals deputy leader Fiona Nash, former Turnbull government minister and Nationals senator Matt Canavan, former Greens senators Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters, senator Nick Xenophon and One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts.
The court now faces the challenging task of dissecting the various claims and counterclaims, and coming to a decision on who may stay and who should go.
The importance of these deliberations cannot be overstated: the final ruling could potentially bring down the government and put Bill Shorten into The Lodge.
It is the first time since Gough Whitlam's dismissal in 1975 that an Australian government has faced an existential crisis of this magnitude outside of an election.
The Turnbull government, which may have erred in previously saying that the High Court would uphold its position, has argued that, to disqualify Mr Joyce, Senator Nash, Senator Canavan, Larissa Waters and crossbench senator Nick Xenophon would "go against the operational purpose" of section 44 because none of them knew about their foreign ties. This is the case Solicitor-General Stephen Donahue is putting.
Mr Donahue's predecessor, Justin Gleeson, SC, who is appearing on behalf of former MP Tony Windsor, who is challenging the validity of Mr Joyce's election, argued otherwise. Mr Gleeson said section 44 demanded "undivided loyalty" from MPs and senators and that ignorance of one's dual nationality was no excuse.
Mr Gleeson famously resigned after a public falling-out with Attorney-General George Brandis last year.
Brian Walters, the lawyer representing Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters, both of whom took the moral high ground by resigning when they became aware they had breached section 44, appeared to agree with the line taken by the former solicitor-general. Mr Walters said the section was intended to "reinforce confidence" in the parliament by ensuring seats were held "by Australians and only Australians".
While it would be presumptuous to speculate on whose arguments the High Court will ultimately favour, it seems clear that this matter cannot be put to bed by a single judicial ruling alone.
The anomalies created by the dysfunction between section 44 of the constitution and Australia's citizenship laws has dragged on for too long.
If it takes a referendum and an amendment to the constitution to end this farce then so be it. We are, after all, only 12 to 18 months out from the next federal election.
