Page:Re Canavan.pdf/35

Kiefel CJ

Bell J

Gageler J

Keane J

Nettle J

Gordon J

Edelman J

acquisition of its nationality" . Statements to similar effect were also made in Sykes v Cleary by Brennan, Deane, Dawson and Gaudron JJ respectively.

38 In Sue v Hill, Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ referred with approval to the reasoning of Brennan and Gaudron JJ in Sykes v Cleary in confirming the proposition that s 44(i) looks to the relevant foreign law to determine whether a candidate is a foreign citizen. In Sue v Hill, Gaudron J also accepted the proposition that "the question whether a person is a citizen of a foreign country is, as a general rule, answered by reference to the law of that country." Thus, the majority of the Court in Sue v Hill adhered to the position taken on this point in Sykes v Cleary.

39 That having been said, all members of the Court in Sykes v Cleary accepted that s 44(i) does not contemplate that foreign law can be determinative of the operation of s 44(i). An Australian court will not apply s 44(i) to disqualify by reason of foreign citizenship where to do so would be to undermine the system of representative and responsible government established under the Constitution.

40 In this regard, s 16 of the Constitution provides: "The qualifications of a senator shall be the same as those of a member of the House of Representatives."

41 Section 34 provides:

"Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the qualifications of a member of the House of Representatives shall be as follows: