Sloppy politicians the real cause of dual citizenship fiasco

The most ludicrous idea in the citizenship trauma is the proposal for a referendum to make our parliament truly multicultural by allowing MPs to be dual citizens.

Let’s dismiss this bad idea at the outset. How do you feel about ­having as prime minister an ­Australian-American dual citizen or an Australian-Israeli dual ­citizen or, if Beijing changes its policy, an Australian-Chinese dual citizen?

The Constitution is not the problem in this mess. The High Court has clarified the Constitution with precision. The problem is sloppy politicians failing to do their homework and accept responsibility. Contrary to the nonsense from Turnbull ministers and the Greens, there is no conflict between our multicultural society and a Constitution that says anyone under any allegiance to or subject to or citizen of a foreign power cannot be an MP. What could be more acceptable?

The principle is that if you want to become an MP and rise to become a minister you are expected to accept modest obligations such as abandoning foreign citizenship or offices of profit under the crown and conceding a year’s imprisonment rules you out. These are hardly unacceptable conditions. They are fundamental to parliamentary office and power.

Any serious push to reverse the import of section 44 would be a social engineering project aimed at weakening Australian sovereignty in the cause of internationalism. Given the utopian dreams these days about referendum prospects it should be asserted any such referendum would have zero chance of success if any government were fool enough to propose it.

Forget how other nations might operate. Australia is a stand-alone nation with a powerful sense of sovereignty. Having a prime minister who reflects our multicultural society is excellent but having a prime minister with potential for dual citizenship misconceives what multiculturalism is about. Imagine the potential for suspicion surrounding a prime minister with dual citizenship when Australia was in a conflicting situation with the other nation to which the PM had citizenship loyalty. The founding fathers had a powerful sense of the nation when drafting section 44. and their vision remains relevant today.

If there is one lesson from the tensions within Western nations over globalisation it is suspicion that elites seek to weaken national sovereignty and fail to get the boundary lines right between internationalism and sovereignty. The prime obligation of our leaders is to the Australian nation, not the global community.

Malcolm Turnbull has said the High Court decision will be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. That is appropriate. Procedures to minimise the risk of MPs being in breach of section 44 are highly desirable. But the associated implication that a referendum may be needed on the grounds of multiculturalism raises alarm bells. The government and parliament need to address issues arising from the citizenship saga. Reversing the import of section 44 by referendum should not be on the agenda. Rhetoric that section 44 contradicts a multicultural society should be abandoned as false and useless.