The ABC reports that the High Court has found that Malcolm Roberts was a UK citizen at the time of his election. So, it should be goodbye Malcolm, even though he would have been valuable in the fight against AGW hysteria. If the Constitution does not prevail, we have no hope.

Paul1405,

There is no need to read the minds of the past. Readings and debates are documented in Hansard so that lawyers and judges can see what the purpose was behind a piece of legislation. The debates surrounding each section of the Constitution, throughout the 1890s, were recorded.

Even if the purpose behind a provision is encapsulated accurately in a literal interpretation of it, judges may still determine that a provision is too absurd to be read literally. It has already been determined, in Sykes v Cleary, that a purely literal interpretation of s 44(i) of the Constitution would be absurd, as it would technically mean that a foreign government could mess with our parliament simply by changing their citizenship laws.

In Sykes v Cleary, it was found that dual citizenship may be alright so long as reasonable steps had been taken to renounce one’s foreign citizenship. Although this was not the case for Cleary. Clearly this wasn’t the case with Malcolm Roberts, either.

--

Dear ttbn,

I have gone through it three times now. If you still do not understand, then there is nothing more I can say. I am sorry it did not work out.

Hi AJ, "lawyers and judges can see what the purpose was behind a piece of legislation". Not withstanding that, what might appear to many as straight forward and reasonable, to others it may not be so clear cut. Even to judges and lawyers.

Hi ttbn, "I can see no reason why any court should be interfering in this matter" So who should be interfering, if its not the court. Can not leave it up to Malcolm, and if we did which Malcolm would that be? Would the Malcolm at the centre of the storm, do a Greens and simply walk, or would the other Malcolm simply give him the sack for political reasons.

Paul,

Now that Roberts has been found to be in parliament illegally, it is up go his party to replace him. But, yes, I concede that the actual citizenship of the person needs to be confirmed apolitically first.