The May 9 decision of the High Court in relation to the dual citizenship of Labor's Katy Gallagher has led to the departure of five politicians from Parliament, four of whom were from the Labor Party.
The Prime Minister's claim is exaggerated. In its May 9 decision, the High Court built on its earlier reasoning and has now made clear that a political candidate's renunciation of foreign citizenship needs to be complete before nomination, unless the foreign country's laws place "irremediable" obstacles in the way. Only then does the question of whether that candidate has taken "all reasonable steps" come into play. Lawyers for the five politicians had argued that it was sufficient for a candidate to have taken all reasonable steps within their power to renounce before nomination, regardless of the response by officials of the foreign country. The May 9 decision may have been the more likely outcome given the High Court's strict interpretation of section 44 in last year's the Canavan case. But based on Fact Check's own analysis and consideration of the views of three eminent legal experts, there remained the possibility that the court would rule otherwise. This was acknowledged in the Government's own legal advice. Until May 9 uncertainty remained: the fates of politicians who had taken "all reasonable steps" to renounce British citizenship but were delayed by UK Home Office processes were not "absolutely obvious and clear".
Fact check: Was the latest dual citizenship decision 'absolutely obvious and clear'?
['Katy_Gallagher', 'Australian_Labor_Party']