Sheradyn Holderhead: Why should we be A-OK with parliamentarians having dual citizenship?

AS politicians warn about the risks of foreign influence, it’s hard to follow the logic that it’s acceptable to have dual citizens sitting in the federal Parliament, writes Sheradyn Holderhead.

• Rebekha Sharkie could contest Mayo by-election under NXT banner
• Georgina Downer wins Liberal preselection for Mayo by-election
• Rebekha Sharkie resigns following High Court citizenship ruling

AT a time when politicians are at pains to warn us about the serious risks of foreign influence it’s hard to follow the logic that it is A-OK to have dual citizens sitting in the federal Parliament.

But a group of cross-party MPs on parliament’s Electoral Matters committee think it is, and have called for a referendum to ditch the now infamous section 44 of the constitution.

It’s their solution to the citizenship debacle which has become the, unfortunate, defining feature of the 45th Parliament.

One of the rules under Section 44 is to ban dual citizens from assuming a seat in Parliament, which has now forced 15 MPs and senators to resign.

Liberal committee chair Senator Linda Reynolds said the rule was becoming “increasingly undemocratic”.

The Lower House seat of Mayo has been forced to a by-election after incumbent Rebekha Sharkie resigned over the High Court dual-citizenship ruling. Picture: Bianca De Marchi

The argument, supported by all but one committee member, goes that certain segments of the population are being forced to “jump through more hoops” than others to stand in an election.

The report comes up with the example of “Emily” — a young woman who was born overseas and aims to make a career out of politics. But when she realises she’s unlikely to win the seat she’s standing for she becomes reluctant to give up her foreign citizenship.

Well, frankly, Emily is being forced to jump through more hoops because she already has a set of additional rights that not all Australians have. An unwillingness to give them up doesn’t seem like a good enough reason to let an MP retain a foreign allegiance.

Supporters of axing the requirement also like to point to the difficulties the section throws up, given that it relies on foreign laws which “can and do change ... overnight”.

But given the cultural backgrounds of current parliamentarians, this argument doesn’t hold much weight, considering the only people to fall foul of the rules held British, Canadian and New Zealand citizenships — which can all be renounced with little more trouble than filling out a form.

Another oft-cited argument is that as federal parliamentary terms are not fixed; elections can be called at any time and catch out people who can’t get their renunciation finalised in time.

Do the public really want to encourage people standing for Parliament on a whim? If you are hoping to run for a seat, you know an election will be called at some point, so get your affairs in order.

WA Liberal MP Ben Morton, the only committee member to disagree with the call for a referendum, put it: “Quite simply, all the resignations and vacancies of MPs as a result of holding dual citizenship ... would have been absolutely avoidable if those MPs had taken action to investigate their own circumstances and free themselves of disqualifications”.

The whole committee agreed that Section 44 was intended to protect parliamentary integrity and national sovereignty and that principles are equally important today as they were drafted in 1901.

Hillary Clinton this week warned Australia about potential Chinese interference in future elections as she reflected on Russian links to the US election.

“I think Australians need to be for Australians. Americans need to be for Americans,” Ms Clinton told the ABC.

Federal MPs are currently debating new foreign interference laws. Politicians of all colours are pushing for these protections.

There is no suggestion whatsoever that the former MPs and senators who have been caught up in the current citizenship saga were acting on behalf of foreign powers.

But why should Australians be comfortable with people with a dual allegiance representing them in the federal Parliament? Imagine a trade minister doing a deal with a another country of which she or he was a citizen.

The report states that without constitutional change, challenges to sitting members will continue into future elections disrupting outcomes, and having the potential to undermine the authority of both Parliament and the Constitution itself.

It’s pretty sad to think that MPs themselves do not have confidence in their colleagues’ ability to fill out a form.