Hinch US link ‘not an issue’, says citizenship law expert

A Citizenship law expert doubts Derryn Hinch’s US social security card will be an issue as he moves to refer himself to High Court.

Senator Derryn Hinch says he will look to clarify his citizenship status. Picture: AAP

A leading citizenship expert says she does not believe Derryn Hinch’s possession of a US social security card puts him at risk of becoming the latest casualty of the citizenship crisis engulfing parliament.

Senator Hinch, who has renounced his New Zealand citizenship still holds a social security card from when he lived in New York, and last night conceded he could still be eligible to receive benefits from the United States.

He confirmed he would seek legal advice on whether his situation should be brought to the High Court for possible contravention of Section 44 of the constitution.

“I plan to raise the issue with the Solicitor-General and, if necessary, will refer myself to the High Court acting as the Court of Disputed Returns,” he told the Herald Sun.

Section 44(i) of the constitution renders the election of federal politicians invalid if they are “entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power”.

ANU citizenship law expert Kim Rubenstein indicated she did not believe Senator Hinch has a case to answer.

“Social security rights are not in themselves rights of citizenship — they are working rights from working in the US,” Professor Rubenstein said.

“Many nation states bestow social security rights on permanent residents — like Australia for instance.

“If Hinch is not and was not a citizen of the US I don’t think that it is an issue.”

However, leading constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey has said any MP holding a US social security card might be in breach Section 44.

Senator Hinch said he did not believe he had accepted the “rights or privileges” of a foreign power and was not in breach of the constitution.

However, he admitted he had not relinquished his social security number from his time working for the Sydney Morning Herald in New York, noting it had been acquired automatically.

“I paid a special social security tax for 10 years, on top of regular income tax, which makes me entitled to a pension,” Senator Hinch said.

“I did write to the US Social Security Department instructing them not to pay that pension because I was now a senator.”

“For the record, I’ve never held US citizenship, I’ve never held a green card.

Senator Hinch told Sky News he contacted the US before he was sworn in at the end of last year to ensure he was not paid that pension as he was becoming an Australian senator.

He went on to say that Senator Katy Gallagher should be referred to the High Court, and that if he should be referred, he’d be “happy to”.

Sky host Peta Credlin said she also held a US social security number and that, because that didn’t entitle a person to vote in a US election, Senator Hinch had “no attachment” to the rights and privileges of citizenship.

The drama surrounding Senator Hinch continues a remarkable episode of uncertainty over Australia’s politicians.

Deputy Prime Minister Barnarby Joyce, Nationals deputy leader Fiona Nash, Nationals senator Matt Canavan, crossbencher Nick Xenophon and One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts will have their elections tested in the court in October because of their foreign citizenship by descent.

Former Greens senators Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters will also face the High Court after learning they were dual citizens of New Zealand and Canada respectively — their birth countries.

Under section 44 of the Constitution, a person who is “a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power” can be disqualified from parliament.