The controversy over dual nationality that has engulfed the Australian Parliament since mid-July now involves at least seven politicians from the Government, the Greens and One Nation.
Contrary to Mr Dreyfus's claim, the situation is not cut and dried. In those cases the court said that for a person to be eligible to stand and be elected to Parliament he or she must take "all steps that could reasonably be taken to renounce" any foreign nationality or citizenship. Looking at the facts in isolation, Mr Joyce, Senator Canavan and Senator Nash did not meet that requirement, as all continued to be dual citizens after being elected. But the matter is not black and white: the court has not had to deal with a situation exactly like this one before. In the previous cases, the people in question were not Australians from birth and there was no dispute that they knew that they obtained citizenship of another country at some point in their lives. It is open to the High Court to completely overturn its existing interpretation of section 44(i). Alternatively, the court can add or clarify its existing interpretation to take into account these different circumstances. This is the position conveyed by the Solicitor-General and the legal representatives of Senator Canavan and Mr Joyce at a recent High Court directions hearing. Whether this would constitute a "change" to the existing position is up for debate.
Fact check: What does the High Court think about dual nationality?
['Australia', 'One_Nation_(Australia)']