The many twists and turns of Malcolm Ieuan Roberts’s citizenship saga have been laid bare in the highest court of the land.
Born to an Australian mother and Welsh father in India in 1955, Roberts says he has only ever believed he was Australian, despite not having set foot on Australian soil until 1962.
The court has found that not to be the case. Roberts, Justice Patrick Keane has found, was a British citizen when he nominated for the Australian senate.
Roberts maintained right up until Thursday, that was not the case, despite not being naturalised until 1974, 12 years after arriving in Australia with his parents.
That became important when he signed his candidate application form for One Nation in April last year, given section 44 of the Australian constitution, which stipulates that dual citizens are ineligible to stand for parliament. Here’s what Roberts has said since then about his citizenship status, just to make sure there is no possibility of any confusion.
On Thursday he told the court he was so sure he was solely Australian
that he didn’t make inquires into his status until after he signed the
candidate application form.
Just before he signed his Senate nomination form on 8 June, he told the court, he allowed a small amount of doubt to spur him into checking his citizenship status with the UK authorities, sending emails to the consulate for clarification on his status.
Unfortunately he sent them to addresses which were either invalid, or defied logic, such as ending in .sydney.uk. Not surprisingly, he got no response.
Roberts, and by extension, One Nation, believed that was enough to show that he had done all he could to establish his status.
The party had already lost a senator to section 44 in the late 1990s, and party staffer James Ashby declared in a text message. just a few months ago the party had learnt from the Heather Hill case and it wouldn’t happen again. Its only foreign-born Queensland Senate candidate with an immigrant father was vetted for potential section 44 infractions.
But Roberts continued to maintain it wasn’t necessary.
In October 2016 Roberts declared he had “never held any other citizenship than Australian”. His spokesman told Guardian Australia the same thing on the same day.
Less than a year later, in July 2017, Roberts’s staff claimed “any renunciation” of what, until then had been a non-existent dual citizenship, was made in June 2016, well before the nomination date.
Under increasing pressure, his office claimed Roberts was not lying when he said he had only ever held Australian citizenship because he was “choosing to believe that he was never British”.
One Nation’s leader, Pauline Hanson, declared that “hand on heart” Roberts had been eligible to stand for parliament and she had seen documents that proved it.
That assertion was backed by Ashby, who said he had also seen those documents, although he couldn’t be sure of the date. Roberts was also backed by the authority of Sky TV’s Paul Murray, who said the documents were “a million per cent correct” and “very clearly” proved Roberts was not a dual citizen.
Anything other suggestion was a pesky media witch hunt, One Nation insisted.
Roberts’s belief in his Australianness sustained him all the way to the high court on Thursday, when he told the Brisbane hearing that there was a chance he could have been born with British citizenship but “the level of my possibility was very low”.
He told the court he knew he could not have been British because his father had never “ribbed” him about it. Besides, he told the court, his sister, who was always more accurate about these sorts of things, had told him they were “stateless” until they were naturalised as Australians.
And despite his own lawyers conceding he held British citizenship, Roberts still does not believe that to be true.
He said he was raised to be an Australian and, in his dealings with the British authorities, despite the Home Office sending official confirmation of his renunciation, it was “still not clear in any way that I ever had British citizenship”.
For Roberts at least, the only facts he is willing to concede are his own.
The court, at least in this case, has found differently.
Born to an Australian mother and Welsh father in India in 1955, Roberts says he has only ever believed he was Australian, despite not having set foot on Australian soil until 1962.
The court has found that not to be the case. Roberts, Justice Patrick Keane has found, was a British citizen when he nominated for the Australian senate.
Roberts maintained right up until Thursday, that was not the case, despite not being naturalised until 1974, 12 years after arriving in Australia with his parents.
That became important when he signed his candidate application form for One Nation in April last year, given section 44 of the Australian constitution, which stipulates that dual citizens are ineligible to stand for parliament. Here’s what Roberts has said since then about his citizenship status, just to make sure there is no possibility of any confusion.
Just before he signed his Senate nomination form on 8 June, he told the court, he allowed a small amount of doubt to spur him into checking his citizenship status with the UK authorities, sending emails to the consulate for clarification on his status.
Unfortunately he sent them to addresses which were either invalid, or defied logic, such as ending in .sydney.uk. Not surprisingly, he got no response.
Roberts, and by extension, One Nation, believed that was enough to show that he had done all he could to establish his status.
The party had already lost a senator to section 44 in the late 1990s, and party staffer James Ashby declared in a text message. just a few months ago the party had learnt from the Heather Hill case and it wouldn’t happen again. Its only foreign-born Queensland Senate candidate with an immigrant father was vetted for potential section 44 infractions.
But Roberts continued to maintain it wasn’t necessary.
In October 2016 Roberts declared he had “never held any other citizenship than Australian”. His spokesman told Guardian Australia the same thing on the same day.
Less than a year later, in July 2017, Roberts’s staff claimed “any renunciation” of what, until then had been a non-existent dual citizenship, was made in June 2016, well before the nomination date.
Under increasing pressure, his office claimed Roberts was not lying when he said he had only ever held Australian citizenship because he was “choosing to believe that he was never British”.
One Nation’s leader, Pauline Hanson, declared that “hand on heart” Roberts had been eligible to stand for parliament and she had seen documents that proved it.
That assertion was backed by Ashby, who said he had also seen those documents, although he couldn’t be sure of the date. Roberts was also backed by the authority of Sky TV’s Paul Murray, who said the documents were “a million per cent correct” and “very clearly” proved Roberts was not a dual citizen.
Anything other suggestion was a pesky media witch hunt, One Nation insisted.
Roberts’s belief in his Australianness sustained him all the way to the high court on Thursday, when he told the Brisbane hearing that there was a chance he could have been born with British citizenship but “the level of my possibility was very low”.
He told the court he knew he could not have been British because his father had never “ribbed” him about it. Besides, he told the court, his sister, who was always more accurate about these sorts of things, had told him they were “stateless” until they were naturalised as Australians.
And despite his own lawyers conceding he held British citizenship, Roberts still does not believe that to be true.
He said he was raised to be an Australian and, in his dealings with the British authorities, despite the Home Office sending official confirmation of his renunciation, it was “still not clear in any way that I ever had British citizenship”.
For Roberts at least, the only facts he is willing to concede are his own.
The court, at least in this case, has found differently.
No comments:
Post a Comment