Questions of citizenship plague Australian Parliament

A surprising citizenship crisis has upended Australia's Parliament as a number of members have had their true citizenship called into question. Under Australia's constitution, dual citizens are not eligible for election. 

Mick Tsikas/AP
Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull addresses reporters at Parliament House in Canberra, Australia Dec. 5, 2017. Turnbull's party as well as the minority party, are facing by-elections as numerous members have had their citizenship called into question.

Australia faces a series of by-elections that could topple the government, which trails in opinion polls and has lost its slender majority, in a bizarre citizenship crisis that has engulfed both sides of Parliament.

Senator Katy Gallagher and lower-house member David Feeney, both from the opposition Labor party, were referred to the High Court on Wednesday to determine whether they hold British, as well as Australian, citizenship.

Neither is a member of the government, but the outcome of Ms. Gallagher's case in particular, which rests on whether she made "reasonable steps" to renounce her British citizenship, will set a precedent that could later unseat government members.

Dual citizens are ineligible for elected office under Australia's 116-year-old constitution.

In a nation in which half the population were either born overseas or have parents who were, the rule has disqualified nine lawmakers, and left Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's Liberal-National coalition clinging to a minority government.

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce briefly lost his seat when it was found he also held New Zealand citizenship. But he won it back in a by-election last weekend.

A by-election in former tennis star John Alexander's theoretically safe Sydney seat on Dec. 19 will determine whether the government regains its one-seat majority.

However, a victory may not be lasting, since the citizenship status of another four lower-house government lawmakers was called into question after a deadline for politicians to disclose the birthplace of their parents and grandparents passed on Tuesday.

"There are many inadequate disclosures that ask more questions than provide answers," Labor leader Bill Shorten told reporters in Canberra.

'Test case'

The government, behind in opinion polls and keen to avoid any more by-elections, voted down a Labor proposal to refer those lawmakers' cases to the High Court and said it would not revisit the matter until after the Gallagher case was heard.

Gallagher filed paperwork, and paid processing fees, to renounce her British citizenship more than two months before being elected in July 2016.

But she did not get confirmation from the British Home Office that her renunciation had been processed until after she was voted in, her disclosure documents show.

Several other lawmakers are in a similar bind.

"It will be a test case," constitutional law expert George Williams, dean of law at the University of New South Wales, told Reuters by telephone.

"But it leaves open the possibility that now this will go on for quite some time. There's large question marks over quite a number of people."

Mr. Turnbull's government would have to rely on the support of a handful of independent MPs to retain power if Alexander loses his Dec. 19 by-election, or if the High Court ousts another coalition lawmaker from the lower house.

"It's uncertain territory, we still don't know for sure who is eligible and who's not," University of Queensland politics lecturer Chris Salisbury told Reuters.

This story was reported by Reuters.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Questions of citizenship plague Australian Parliament
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today