NZ law could disqualify all Australians from their Parliament

[bilateralrope]

NZ Herald

If you were to take Australian law to the letter, then there would not be a single Australian citizen qualified to serve in that country's Parliament.

Amid the dual citizenship scandal involving a number of Australian MPs, a Sydney barrister has claimed that, a section of the federal constitution could arguably disqualify everyone from parliament... and New Zealand is to blame for that.

In a blog post on the Huffington Post, barrister Robert Angyal pointed out that section 44 of the Australian Constitution states that anyone "under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power" would be disqualified from serving in federal parliament.

"Under recent and little-noticed changes to New Zealand law, Australian citizens now don't need a visa to live, study or work in the Land of the Long White Cloud. That's right: Any Australian citizen is entitled to live, study and work there," he said.

"That means we're all entitled to the rights and privileges of a subject of New Zealand - not a citizen, with the attached rights and privileges such as voting - but to be a subject of that country, living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And there's no doubt that New Zealand is a foreign power."

According to Angyal, if section 44 were to be taken into account, no Australian would be eligible to be an Australian MP.

He went on to explain that it's not about using those rights and privileges of a foreign power as you only need to be entitled to those rights and privileges.

"New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone," he added.

Now for the Blog post in question

Section 44 Of The Constitution Means NOBODY Is Eligible To Be Elected To Parliament

You think I'm joking. I'm not joking. Section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution says that a person is incapable of being elected to the Senate or the House of Representatives or sitting as a member of either house, if they are "a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power".

Let's break that down.

If you are "entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject ... of a foreign power", you are ineligible to be elected to, or to serve in, Federal Parliament. You don't have to have the rights and privileges of a subject of a foreign power -- you just have to be entitled to those rights and privileges.

Now, consider the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis, a country consisting of two tiny islands in the Caribbean Sea, remote from Australia, with a population smaller than Bathurst's. Under s. 44 of our Constitution, it is a "foreign power" (you don't have to be powerful to be a foreign power, just foreign).

Suppose that Saint Kitts and Nevis tomorrow amended its citizenship laws so that every Australian citizen was entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen of Saint Kitts and Nevis. Result? Because of s. 44, all members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate would be rendered incapable of sitting in Federal Parliament. And, nobody would be capable of being elected to either house of Parliament to replace them. Section 44 of the Constitution thus has the weird effect of making eligibility to be elected to and serve in the Australian Parliament dependent on the citizenship law of other countries -- all 195 of them.

Your example is utterly hypothetical, you say. Absurd, you say. Could never happen, you say.

Guess what? Much closer to home, under recent and little-noticed changes to New Zealand law, Australian citizens now don't need a visa to live, study or work in the Land of the Long White Cloud. That's right: Any Australian citizen is entitled to live, study and work there.

That means we're ALL entitled to the rights and privileges of a subject of New Zealand -- not a citizen, with the attached rights and privileges such as voting -- but to be a subject of that country, living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And there's no doubt that New Zealand is a "foreign power" -- you only have to watch the All Blacks do the haka to realise that.

What does this mean?

New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone!

A fine day for Aus vs NZ rivalry.

[The Romulan Republic]

And here I thought America's politics were ridiculous.

I mean, our fuck-ups are way more dangerous, but this is a special level of just plain absurdity.

[Zaune]

Except not really, because Section 44 of the Constitution is quite clearly aimed at people with full citizenship of another country and all the potential for conflicted loyalties that would imply, and that to interpret it in this fashion is so patently contrary to the spirit of the law that no court would even consider trying to enforce it.

[mr friendly guy]

This has caused some heads to roll, and shows once again, that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. The government was so ecstatic when 2 senators from the Greens party were forced to resign after being revealed they were citizens of NZ and Canada respectively. Then it turns out 3 government politicians are now under a cloud, including a minister and the deputy prime minister. Naturally they did not fall on their swords.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-18/f ... rt/8820112

Calamitous judgment steers governments ever closer to the electoral abyss
ANALYSIS
7.30 By political correspondent Andrew Probyn
Updated Fri at 11:47am

After a week no-one in Government would stomach repeating, the very stability and legitimacy of the Turnbull administration now lies in the appetite of seven judges for legal adventurism.

Only if the High Court justices eschew black letter law and develop activist case law will Malcolm Turnbull's Government be able to rebalance.

In pursuit of modern interpretation of Section 44(i) in the constitution, the Prime Minister requires the High Court to be more Lionel Murphy and William Deane than Garfield Barwick or Harry Gibbs.

No time for dour legal literalism, Government lawyers will argue.

What a mess. Because not even the most creative of legal beaks may be able to forgive sloppy paperwork.

And so the Government hangs on Nationals leader and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, his deputy Fiona Nash and fellow National Matt Canavan being innocently ignorant of being a Kiwi, a Scot and an Italian.

It requires generous interpretation of an ancient provision banning parliamentarians being "under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power".

In the face of such uncertainty, the Prime Minister, himself no legal slouch, this week affected surety, declaring Mr Joyce was "qualified to sit in this House, and the High Court will so hold".

Even if he is right, it will take several weeks or months. The High Court's in-tray is already to the brim.

When not sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns to decide the fate of the four Nationals (the three dual nationals and David Gillespie), two Greens (Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters) and One Nation's one-time Brit Malcolm Roberts, the High Court also has to rule on the validity of the same-sex marriage postal survey.

Parliament will be even more unruly and dysfunctional

There is no end to the curly conundrums being tossed at the High Court by Capital Hill.

And none is what the Government wants or needs to be talking about.

Indeed, the Government's inept handling of the citizenship question exposed it to Bill Shorten's strategic ruthlessness.

Parliament will not return until September 4 and when it does, expect Labor to have sharpened its tactics of parliamentary disobedience.

The Opposition has rounded on questions of legitimacy as its central attack on the Turnbull Government, just as Tony Abbott routinely scythed at the credibility of Julia Gillard's minority government.

Mr Abbott condemned Ms Gillard's reliance on the "tainted vote" of Craig Thomson and Liberal turncoat-turned-speaker Peter Slipper. Mr Shorten will return serve to the conservatives.

Karma has become queen.

With a view to preserving its one-seat majority, the Prime Minister and his leadership team decided to cite as-yet unseen advice from the Solicitor-General to defend Mr Joyce's continued service in the ministry.

It relies on similar advice to defend Senator Nash staying put in the Upper House.

But the inconsistent and contradictory treatment of Senator Canavan undercuts the Government's argument.

The Coalition, including Mr Joyce, said it was appropriate for Senator Canavan to step aside, yet the same standard was ditched when inconvenient.

And with Mr Shorten to use the constitutional cloud over Mr Joyce's eligibility to dispute proceedings in the House of Representatives, Parliament will be rendered even more unruly and dysfunctional.

Proroguing Parliament until citizenship questions are resolved, as Cory Bernardi mischievously suggested, is not a politically viable option.

But until the Nationals' eligibility is decided, the PM will be expending considerable energies defending his Government's entire operation.

Cabinet ministers are miserable at such a prospect. The political benefit of worthy policy ambitions faces ruin by distraction. The validity of legislative successes will be in question.

One minister said he could not believe the bad luck that had befallen the Turnbull Government.

But bad luck does not account for the absurdity of its claim that Labor had been party to an international conspiracy with its Kiwi counterparts to bring down the Government.

According to ministers, this was a strategy cooked up primarily by the Prime Minister and his deputy Julie Bishop.

For Ms Bishop to accuse Mr Shorten of "treacherous behaviour" and for the PM to assert the Labor leader wanted to "steal Government" by conspiring with a foreign power was deserving of the ridicule it received.

Calamitous judgment may not bring governments down, but it steers them ever closer to the electoral abyss.

We are also treated to conspiracy theories from the government, that the Australian opposition conspired with the New Zealand opposition to get the New Zealand government to announce to the world its citizen laws which rendered our deputy prime minister, Barnaby Joyce a Kiwi. I knew that was something fishy about Mr Joyce, but I couldn't put my finger on it until now. It turns out he is an Elf from Middle Earth corrupted by Sauron to become an orc. How else do you explain his opposition to marriage equality when New Zealand voted for it.

**********************************************************************************
Also the ABC did a piece on this, and they feel that section 44 won't cover a hypothetical scenario where (and this is the example they give), Putin gives Russian citizenship to an Australian politician he doesn't like to invalidate their position in parliament.

[B5B7]

The Liberal Party is always guilty of hypocrisy. They have a cosy relationship with the British Conservative Party and also with the American Republicans.
Any bad luck they have is of their own making such as Turnbull's unethical, probably (should be) illegal action to waste $122 million of citizens' money on a fancy (non-binding in any way) poll, when existing polls already show support for gay marriage by the populace. All it will do is provide more money for the anti-gay marriage side to further spruik their ideas if he succeeds in his plan. If we applied his concept of the Parliament ignoring its responsibility to make laws, we could extend it to have the people voting for every law change and not even need Parliament.

They were happy when it turned out a couple of Greens were "aliens", not so happy now that National Party MPs are aliens.
Of course, the whole idea that someone may be disloyal if have some paper saying they have some vague shared citizenship with another nation, yet will be totally loyal citizens if do not have such a paper is ridiculous. The Constitutional clause backing this position needs to be removed. It is also ironic in light of two of our recent Prime Ministers being of Welsh and English birth (Gillard and Abbott).

When Abbott was PM I thought he was the worst ever PM but Turnbull is even worse (and don't let me get started on WA's share of the GST).

[GuppyShark]

This is the conservatives moving the goalposts now that their own people are in trouble.

It's only the Constitution guys, just wait and keep illegally passing legislation? I don't care how dumb or 'out of date' it might be, it's the Constitution. The Governor-General should remove anyone who declared they were not a citizen of another nation and is discovered to be one. That's their job as I understand it.

[mr friendly guy]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-27/c ... rs/9050222

And the winners and losers are announced.

Barnaby Joyce (Nationals) - LOSER. Always knew he was a traitor.

Mr Joyce was ruled to have been ineligible because of his dual citizenship with New Zealand, acquired because his father was born there. He will have to fight a by-election for his seat of New England on December 2.

It means the Government has lost its one-seat majority at least until after that by-election. Decisions he has taken in his ministerial roles in Agriculture and Resources could also be challenged.

His old opponent Tony Windsor has said he will not recontest the seat.

Fiona Nash (Nationals) - LOSER. With the two nationals gone the government has lost its majority. Fun times.

Senator Nash was ruled ineligible as a dual citizen because her father was born in Scotland.

The High Court is likely to order a recount and the Senate spot could go to Liberal Hollie Hughes, who was next on the Coalition Senate ticket at the last election.

That would mean a change in the Coalition balance as Senator Nash is a National and Ms Hughes is a Liberal.

There could be pressure for the party to find a way for Senator Nash to return to the Upper House.

She held onto her ministerial roles while the High Court process was going on, but a reshuffle would now be required.

Malcolm Roberts (One Nation) - Loser

The High Court had already ruled Senator Roberts was a dual UK citizen when he nominated for Parliament; it has now ruled him ineligible.

He had claimed he never believed himself to be anything other than Australian, despite being born in India to a Welsh father and only signing a form to become an Australian citizen in his late teens.

Senator Roberts' lawyers argued his case was the strongest of the seven, because he had at least made inquiries to UK authorities about his status — however comically misguided those inquiries were found to be.

His official renunciation of his British citizenship was not registered until months after the election.

The High Court will ask for a recount to determine his replacement. The next One Nation candidate on the Queensland ticket is Fraser Anning.

Scott Ludlam (Greens) - LOSER

The Greens co-deputy leader had already resigned because he found out he had dual citizenship with New Zealand; the High Court has now ruled he was ineligible to be elected.

The Electoral Commission will do a recount to replace him. Next on the Greens ticket in Western Australia is Jordan Steele-John, a young Greens activist who has cerebral palsy.

Larissa Waters (Greens) - LOSER

Senator Waters, former Greens co-deputy leader, had already quit because she had not renounced her Canadian dual citizenship.

The High Court has now ruled her out and will order a recount. She would be replaced by the next Green on the Queensland Senate ticket, Andrew Bartlett.

She has already said she would like to make a Senate return at some stage because she has "unfinished business she wants to continue".

Matt Canavan (Nationals) - WINNER

The court ruled in favour of Senator Canavan, so he is cleared.

Senator Canavan's lawyer argued that Italian laws effectively meant someone could hold citizenship for many generations if no-one in a family line renounced their status.

He has regained the ministerial responsibilities he walked away from in July.

Nick Xenophon (NXT) - WINNER

Senator Xenophon was ruled by the High Court to be eligible.

His sub-class of UK citizenship isn't deemed to give him the rights and privileges of a British subject. He can't enter the country as a British citizen, and he also can't live there — something considered key qualities for being a foreign national. There's also the quirk that had his father waited to leave Cyprus after the island nation had declared independence from the UK, he wouldn't be covered by UK overseas citizenship.

Whether the High Court found him eligible or not, Nick Xenophon had already said he will quit the Upper House and run for a state seat. Either way, NXT retains three senators but needs to choose a new leader.

His resignation from the Federal Parliament creates a casual vacancy and the NXT gets to choose the candidate to replace him. His staff member Rex Patrick is strongly tipped to take over the Senate seat. Mr Patrick was once a submariner in the navy and has also worked with former Liberal defence minister David Johnston.

Lets recap. The government (a conservative party) made a big deal about the two Greens (a leftist party) senators having dual citizenship. The Greens exited with a modicrum of dignity and resigned. Then it turned out an equivalent number of government members also lost their seats including a high ranking member. Another conservative party (One Nation) also lost a senator. Meanwhile the opposition ALP lost zero members. Who is laughing now?

[GuppyShark]

It's glorious. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes, as the kids say. It's just pathetic that they ended up taking it to the High Court instead of stepping down gracefully, still legislating the whole way.

[The Jester]

Category: Australian Constitution
Reproducibility: Frequent
Version: 1977
Severity: Worse than you may think, though it may not feel that way

Description: Senators and MPs frequently drop

It appears that Section 44 has a significant number of dependencies on external libraries that are causing Senators and MPs to drop at random. This is often due to the convoluted workings from said libraries' legacy support. And while the outcomes may not necessarily be undesireable (see the Roberts report), due to the black box nature of these dependencies, complex inner-workings that require significant experience to understand and retroactive inheritance pattern to all impacted subclasses, it is causing MPs and Senators to drop without misbehaviour or often any foreknowledge.

Since they lie beyond our control, we may want to reduce these dependencies.

[Gandalf]

Lambie's gone. Auspol approaching maximum comedy!

Jacqui Lambie to resign after dual citizenship confirmed

Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie says she will resign from the Federal Parliament over dual citizenship concerns.

Her father was born in Scotland, which means she is entitled to British citizenship by descent.

Senator Lambie had previously released a statement saying she was satisfied her parents were both Australian citizens.

But she told Grant Broadcasters radio this morning that she realised she may have had a problem while going back over her father's history following the resignation of Stephen Parry from the Senate.

The senator asked the UK Home Office for clarification of her status yesterday.

She has ruled out running in the upcoming Tasmanian election, but left open the option of another tilt at federal politics, saying she may consider running in the seat of Braddon if Labor MP Justine Keay is forced to resign over her citizenship.

Ms Keay did not receive confirmation that her British citizenship had been renounced until after the cut-off date for nominations for the federal election, which is the date required by section 44 of the constitution.

This is just fucking hilarious.

[mr friendly guy]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-14/j ... ip/9145716

Jacqui Lambie bids tearful farewell to Senate after shock British citizenship finding forces her out
By political reporter Lucy Sweeney
Updated 26 minutes ago

Jacqui Lambie has made an emotional farewell to the Senate after discovering this morning she is "not as bloody Australian as they come".

The Tasmanian senator confirmed the UK Home Office had told her she was entitled to British citizenship by descent because her father was born in Scotland.

"It is with great regret that I have to inform you that I had been found ineligible by way of dual citizenship," she told her Senate colleagues this afternoon.

"I love my father to death and hope to not blame him for this.

"He has done nothing for which to apologise and he has been my strongest supporter, my loudest cheer squad and my closest adviser.

<snip the rest>

[Zaune]

Am I the only person who thinks this is utterly ridiculous?

[mr friendly guy]

I don't think its ridiculous that we don't want dual citizens in parliament, loyalty to country and all that.

I do think its ridiculous that other countries will consider someone a citizen purely by descent, and not by things like place of birth or having lived in the country etc. The only exception I can think where this law makes sense is Israel, since their purpose is to give a refuge to Jews.

Now it becomes a matter of whose rule we follow, and since its our country, the answer is our laws. The prospective politicians should just give up their other citizenship. Sam Daystari paid a lot of money to Iranian lawyers to legally get rid of his Iranian citizenship, I don't see why some of these politicians couldn't do much less to just get rid of their other citizenship. They were in the words of our PM "sloppy," (maximum irony since this was said before his own colleagues were found to be dual citizens).

Now there should of course clearly be limits to how this is interpreted. For example if Vladimir Putin had a dispute with Malcolm Turnbull, he can't just award the Australian PM Russian citizenship and watch him get disqualified for holding dual citizenship. Its actually unlikely this can happen given the way the law is written though.

Anyway, back to the fun and games. Let the hounds of chaos roar.

[Zaune]

One slight problem with that. You cannot renounce British citizenship, or have it taken away, if you are entitled to it by descent. There is literally no legal mechanism for doing that, even if you enlist in the armed forces of a country we are at war with.

[mr friendly guy]

https://www.gov.uk/renounce-british-nationality

Seems a straight forward process to renounce the British citizenship. It seems the problem was that these politicians didn't think they had British citizenship.

[GuppyShark]

Tony Abbott in fact did so and has the proof of it.

https://twitter.com/tonyabbottmhr/statu ... 96?lang=en

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't think its ridiculous that we don't want dual citizens in parliament, loyalty to country and all that.

I do think its ridiculous that other countries will consider someone a citizen purely by descent, and not by things like place of birth or having lived in the country etc. The only exception I can think where this law makes sense is Israel, since their purpose is to give a refuge to Jews.

As a dual citizen myself, I'm going to have to disagree on both these points.

Why can one not be loyal to the interests of both their home countries (provided those countries are not enemies)? I am an American and a Canadian- I do not consider myself a nationalist in either case, and their are principles I would rate higher than loyalty to any country, but I do have affection for, and close family connections to, both countries.* The welfare of the people of both countries matters to me, not only on the abstract moral level that any person's welfare should matter to me, but on a personal one as well. And the actions of both countries' governments will directly affect me, and the rights and obligations I as a citizen have.

Am I less of a Canadian because I am an American, less entitled to the rights of the citizenship I legally hold? Or vice versa? Am I neither a true Canadian nor a true American, but someone with no true country at all?

I also have to speak up in defence of citizenship by descent, to a degree. While I think that it is reasonable to have a "statute of limitations" (it would be absurd for me to claim citizenship on the basis of, say, where my great-grandfather was from), I strongly support the American system by which, if your parent is a citizen, you also have birth-right citizenship. Otherwise, you would get into absurd situations where someone who's parents were American was denied citizenship because they happened to be born while their parents were outside the country.

Or you have a situation like mine, where my mother was Canadian, my father American, where I spent almost my entire childhood in the United States, but was born on Canadian soil.

In any case, I oppose on principle any kind of second-class citizenship. To my mind, you are either a citizen, or you aren't. Either prohibit dual citizenship altogether, if you're worried about national loyalty, or give dual citizens the same rights as every other citizen.

* Incidentally, if anyone ever asks me which country I would pick if I had to choose, my default answer is that the one that asks me to make that choice is the one that will lose.

Edited to correct spelling of "dual".

[mr friendly guy]

Er, correct me if I am wrong, but don't you live in a country where one cannot be President unless one was born on US soil? Doesn't that make that person by your broad definition a "second class citizen."

I would also point out that in Australia, dual citizens have the same rights, just that they cannot enter political life, and that's easy enough to fix. Give up the other citizenship.

[The Romulan Republic]

Er, correct me if I am wrong, but don't you live in a country where one cannot be President unless one was born on US soil? Doesn't that make that person by your broad definition a "second class citizen."

Technically, I live in Canada. Also, this law probably wouldn't effect me, since I have "birthright citizenship" by virtue of my dad being American. My situation reg. the legality of a Presidential run, if I were daft enough (and old enough) to do such a thing, is basically the same as Ted Cruz's, and judges ruled that he was eligible to run (the one point on which I agree with Ted Cruz- I hate the man and everything he stands for, but he should have the right to throw his hat in the ring).

But yeah, I don't agree with that law, and I'm honestly not sure what your point is. Its not like I claimed to support every law the United States has on the subject, or hold it up as an ideal model for how to handle duel citizenship.

To my mind, a citizen is a citizen is a citizen. Or at least that's how it should be.

I would also point out that in Australia, dual citizens have the same rights, just that they cannot enter political life, and that's easy enough to fix. Give up the other citizenship.

If they cannot enter political life, then by definition they do not have the same rights.

And its all very easy to say "give up your other citizenship" if you are not in that position. Has it occurred to you that some people might legitimately value both their citizenships, as well as the possibility of them having practical reasons why it would gravely inconvenience them to give one up?

[mr friendly guy]

But yeah, I don't agree with that law, and I'm honestly not sure what your point is. Its not like I claimed to support every law the United States has on the subject, or hold it up as an ideal model for how to handle duel citizenship.

To my mind, a citizen is a citizen is a citizen. Or at least that's how it should be.

I was thinking of Schwarzeneggar instead of Crux to be honest. He cannot run for POTUS even though he is a citizen because he was born in Austria and neither parents are American. The reason I brought this up, you objected to certain people being "second class citizens" because on restriction on political life. However by your definition, Arnie would be one.

This restriction is more strict than the one causing problems in Australia. Arnie could give up his citizenship and he still couldn't run. At least in Australia we have at least two prime ministers who were born overseas, Tony Abott (born in England) and Julia Gillard (born in Wales) who could hold the highest political post in the land. One can get rid of a second citizenship, but Arnie cannot time travel and make it so that he was born in the US instead.

And its all very easy to say "give up your other citizenship" if you are not in that position. Has it occurred to you that some people might legitimately value both their citizenships, as well as the possibility of them having practical reasons why it would gravely inconvenience them to give one up?

Yeah it could be important to them, and they have to make a choice with whether serving the people in political office is more important than being a citizen of the other country.

Frankly the old adage about a country having no permanent friends, only permanent interests apply. Just because a country is on good terms with us now, doesn't mean the relationship could sour.

edit - edited for clarity

[The Romulan Republic]

But yeah, I don't agree with that law, and I'm honestly not sure what your point is. Its not like I claimed to support every law the United States has on the subject, or hold it up as an ideal model for how to handle duel citizenship.

To my mind, a citizen is a citizen is a citizen. Or at least that's how it should be.

I was thinking of Schwarzeneggar instead of Crux to be honest. He cannot run for POTUS even though he is a citizen because he was born in Austria and neither parents are American. The reason I brought this up, you objected to certain people being "second class citizens" because on restriction on political life. However by your definition, Arnie would be one.

This restriction is more strict than the one causing problems in Australia. Arnie could give up his citizenship and he still couldn't run. At least in Australia we have at least two prime ministers who were born overseas, Tony Abott (born in England) and Julia Gillard (born in Wales) who could hold the highest political post in the land. One can get rid of a second citizenship, but Arnie cannot time travel and make it so that he was born in the US instead.

Like I said, its a shitty law, and I'd repeal it if I could. But doing that would require a constitutional amendment.

Also, now that I think about it, its not quite the same as a restriction on dual citizens. A dual citizen can run for President as long as they were born in America. A person with only an American citizenship could not, if they were not born with that citizenship.

Yeah it could be important to them, and they have to make a choice with whether serving the people in political office is more important than being a citizen of the other country.

Why should they have to make that choice? Why should they be told "You're less of a citizen because you happen to be a citizen of another country as well"? Do you not see the insult in implying that a dual citizen is so inherently untrustworthy that they cannot be allowed to serve their country in government, while people who have objectively done things to make themselves untrustworthy can?

Saying "this is the way it is" is not an explanation or justification for why it should be that way.

Frankly the old adage about a country having no permanent friends, only permanent interests apply. Just because a country is on good terms with us now, doesn't mean the relationship could sour.

edit - edited for clarity

I would accept a prohibition on citizens of a country we are at war with serving in government. But that's it.

[mr friendly guy]

Why should they have to make that choice? Why should they be told "You're less of a citizen because you happen to be a citizen of another country as well"? Do you not see the insult in implying that a dual citizen is so inherently untrustworthy that they cannot be allowed to serve their country in government, while people who have objectively done things to make themselves untrustworthy can?

Saying "this is the way it is" is not an explanation or justification for why it should be that way.

Its not a matter of trust, its a conflict of interest.

A person can have two masters, and its all ok while the two masters are in agreement or their interests do not clash. However it has problems when the masters are not in agreement. Like I said, a country has no permanent friends but permanent interests. I don't think we need to get to a war between states before we nip this potential problem in the bud.

edit - to elaborate conflict of interest, if I were in charge of hiring out government contracts for a particular service, should I still be in charge if one of the companies competing is run by my sister? What happens if I say well I am honest and its insulting to think that I am untrustworthy just because my sister is running one of the companies. Even if I judged it fairly, there will always be that lingering doubt. Its not just about removing subconscious biases, its also to stop unfair perception that the process has not been fair.

[The Romulan Republic]

Personally, I believe that, for example, America's interests and Canada's generally align (ditto Australia's and New Zealand's, I imagine), and where they do not, I don't see that as a large enough conflict of interest, generally, to justify laws which discriminate on the basis of nationality to the extent of denying full participation in government.

As I said, were it a case of two countries at war, it would be a different matter.

[mr friendly guy]

Oh I agree in a case of war, it definitely would matter. I am however of the opinion that this law is a precaution in case relationship between countries deteriorate.

Even with NZ and Australia, NZ are getting accusations that they are manipulating Australia's political process (the accusation is unfair), by ironically discovering that certain a Australian politician is also a Kiwi. Thus disqualifying them. Even if it was politically motivated to embarrass a government on the different end of the political spectrum to NZ's current government, they aren't breaking Australian law and are helping us enforce our own laws by bringing this to our attention, even if (under this situation) they could be seen to be interfering in our political processes.

The point is of course, our interests were quite maligned for this to happen, which just goes to show, we need this law as a barrier (out of many) to prevent our political process being due to anything but the will of our people.

[The Romulan Republic]

I mean, can there by conflicts of interest? Yes, of course. On the other hand, the right to participate in government (in all its manifestations) is such a fundamental cornerstone of democratic principles that I am very reluctant to advocate infringing upon it under any but the most severe circumstances.