Federal Politics

ANALYSIS
Save
Print
License article

The rule banning dual citizens from Parliament is absurd - but we're stuck with it

As Oscar Wilde might say: "To lose one deputy leader may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness."

Up Next

Hidden from the light for 65,000 years

null
Video duration
02:21

More National News Videos

Larissa Waters resigns

The deputy Greens leader becomes the second to resign in less than a week.

Section 44 of the constitution has claimed another victim, its fourth this Parliament: the capable and intelligent Larissa Waters.

It's a catastrophic blow for the Greens, still reeling from the loss of Scott Ludlam last week. Two of Richard Di Natale's most promising young talents, both of them beloved by their supporters and both of them potential future leaders, gone.

Their loss will further destabilise a party already locked in a damaging civil war. Di Natale's leadership is taking an absolute hammering.

He's not personally to blame for losing Ludlam and Waters. But he's right to order a review of the party's vetting processes because they've clearly let him down.

Advertisement

Our founding fathers did a pretty good job with our constitution but section 44 - particularly the article relating to dual citizenship - is a relic of a bygone era, completely out-of-date and at odds with the multicultural melting pot that is modern Australia.

Like America's second amendment, section 44 was drafted by men who lived in a different world and it has no sensible place in ours. It comes from a time when Australia was a fledgling nation, surrounded by enemies and genuinely fearful of infiltration.

Today, there are perhaps no two countries that more closely resemble ours in terms of history and values than New Zealand and Canada. Obviously, we have no reason to fear them. Besides, Ludlam left New Zealand when he was three; Waters left Canada before she'd even turned one. The notion that either of them had split allegiances is fanciful.

The same goes for Tony Abbott and his ties to Great Britain, for that matter. Abbott's haters love to push the theory - completely disproved - that he is still a British dual citizen because they want to see him booted from Parliament. But so what if he was?

We are still a part of their monarchy. We still pledge allegiance to their Queen! So how could his loyalties be in any way divided?

Up to a quarter of Australians are dual citizens, or entitled to take up dual citizenship. None can legally run for Parliament unless they renounce their foreign ties, or at least take "all reasonable steps" to do so. That's millions of people - millions of Australians - who cannot be candidates under our system unless they formally break with their heritage.

It's absurd, and what's worse it doesn't even do what it's supposed to: protect us from foreign infiltrators. Just because someone has renounced a foreign citizenship doesn't mean they have truly surrendered their foreign allegiance. And as homegrown terrorism proves, someone who is born in Australia is not necessarily going to remain loyal to it.

But here's the sad reality: section 44 may be a fossil but we're stuck with it. The only way to change it is through a referendum that would have little chance of success. Politicians asking people to make a change to let "foreigners" into our Parliament? It's a non-starter.

So the Greens, and all political parties for that matter, need to do better. They have to redouble their efforts to follow the rules in order to prevent this sort of upheaval, which disenfranchises voters and further erodes public trust in our system.

Stop being so careless.

Follow us on Facebook

245 comments

Comment are now closed