One Nation's Malcolm Roberts has rubbished legal arguments by the Commonwealth that some of the politicians embroiled in the dual citizenship saga should be let off because they simply did not know they were foreigners.
Senator Roberts is the final member of the "Citizenship Seven" to submit his arguments to the High Court on why he should keep his spot in Federal Parliament.
"Senator Roberts is not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional lawyer," his lawyers stated in his submissions.
Last week, the High Court ruled he was in fact a British citizen at the time of the 2016 election, and that his email attempts to renounce any British citizenship he may have held were sent to the wrong addresses.
The next step is for the court to decide whether that rules him out of holding office under the constitution.
Section 44(i) of the nation's founding document bans dual citizens from being elected to Federal Parliament.
Rather than letting the court's first ruling dampen his fervent defence of his position, Senator Roberts' lawyers now argue his, "case is stronger than those who profess ignorance and thus did nothing".
"Senator Roberts's actions at the time of nomination demonstrate he did not want to be a citizen of any other country," they said.
Earlier in the week, the Commonwealth's submissions to the High Court argued Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, deputy Nationals leader Fiona Nash, former Nationals minister Matt Canavan, South Australian senator Nick Xenophon and former Greens senator Larissa Waters should be saved because they would not have known they were dual citizens.
Who actually breached the constitution?
The Commonwealth argued only Senator Roberts and former Greens senator Scott Ludlam had breached the constitution.
But the One Nation senator's lawyers disagreed, and panned the Commonwealth's arguments.
"His case is indistinguishable from most of the other referents now before the court, in particular, those of Mr Joyce, Senator Canavan, Senator [sic] Waters, Senator Nash and Senator Xenophon," Senator Roberts' lawyers argued.
"The ultimate submission by the Attorney to the effect that people who just do not know they are a citizen of another country and because of that do nothing about it are somehow in a better position vis-a-vis s 44 (i) than someone who acknowledges the possibility and honestly tries to reject any other citizenship is as alarming as it is illogical."
Lawyers for Mr Ludlam and Ms Waters have also criticised the Commonwealth's arguments, suggesting it is relying on a complex interpretation of the constitution to save the Coalition's own members.
The High Court's full hearings in the citizenship cases are on October 10-12.
