Re Canavan
| Re Canavan; Re Ludlam; Re Waters; Re Roberts [No 2]; Re Joyce; Re Nash; Re Xenophon | |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Australia as the Court of Disputed Returns |
| Full case name | In the Matter of Questions Referred to the Court of Disputed Returns Pursuant to Section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) Concerning Senator the Hon Matthew Canavan; Mr Scott Ludlam; Ms Larissa Waters; Senator Malcolm Roberts; The Hon Barnaby Joyce MP; Senator the Hon Fiona Nash; Senator Nick Xenophon |
| Argued | 10-12 October 2017 |
| Decided | 27 October 2017 |
| Citations | [2017] HCA 45, (2017) 263 CLR 284 |
| Transcripts | |
| Case history | |
| Prior action | Re Roberts [2017] HCA 39 |
| Subsequent action | Re Nash [No 2] [2017] HCA 52 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ |
| Case opinions | |
| A person holding foreign citizenship, irrespective of whether they knew about their citizenship status, will be disqualified pursuant to s. 44(i) of the Constitution from being elected to Parliament unless they are irremediably prevented by foreign law from renouncing the foreign citizenship and have taken all steps that are reasonably required to renounce that foreign citizenship. (per curiam) | |
| Keywords | |
Re Canavan; Re Ludlam; Re Waters; Re Roberts [No 2]; Re Joyce; Re Nash; Re Xenophon (commonly referred to as the "Citizenship Seven case") is a set of cases, heard together by the High Court of Australia sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, arising from doubts as to the eligibility of a number of members of Parliament to be elected to Parliament because of section 44(i) of the Constitution.
The Court unanimously held on 27 October 2017 that a dual citizen, irrespective of whether they knew about their citizenship status, will be disqualified from Parliament unless they are irremediably prevented by foreign law from renouncing the foreign citizenship and have taken all steps that are reasonably required to renounce that foreign citizenship; it identified a "constitutional imperative" that no Australian citizen should be irremediably excluded from participation in representative government.: paras 43-46, 72 The Court rejected arguments that would change the approach to section 44(i) of the Constitution, maintaining the approach of the majority in Sykes v Cleary.