The Impact of Dual Citizenship on Australian Parliament: Section 44(i)

This essay examines Section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution, which restricts members of parliament from holding dual citizenship. It delves into the historical context of the provision, its interpretation by the High Court in cases like Sykes v Cleary and Sue v Hill, and the ongoing debate about its relevance in modern, multicultural Australia. The essay explores the arguments for and against amending Section 44(i), considering the potential impact on the composition of Parliament and the representation of diverse communities. It also draws comparisons with citizenship laws in other countries, highlighting the unique challenges and opportunities facing Australia in balancing national loyalty with global interconnectedness. The conclusion emphasizes the need for a comprehensive review of Section 44(i) to ensure that it aligns with contemporary values and promotes a fair and inclusive political system.

Running head: INSTITUTION LAW OF GOVERNANCE
Institution law of governance
Name of Student-
Name of University-
Student ID-
Author note-

1INSTITUTION LAW OF GOVERNANCE
According to the section 44(i) of the constitution of Australia there are some list of
requirements for every person who are to be voted as member of the parliament. According to
section 44(i) of the constitution of Australia it is important for all the parliament members to
trust and be loyal to the government of Australia. Any person who has dual citizenship of any
other nation cannot hold the membership of the parliament of Australia. No member of the
Australian parliament should be in any influence of the any other foreign government. We can
say that this section of the Australian constitution is old as it was formed when there was no
concept of dual citizenship. There is an excluded clause of the constitution that states that no
person holding dual citizenship is allowed to get involved in federal politics as it was thought to
be controversial and problematic (Leblang 2017). Two questions has been raised by the
Australian constitution is that
 Whether the principle of dual citizenship be removed from federal politics?
 Is it important to declare dual citizenship wrong as to get involved in federal
politics and what are the necessary stages involved to denounce dual citizenship?
The subsection 44(i) of the Australia constitution has the motive to avoid the influence of
the other states that can be both actual and perceived conflicts. The main objective of the
constitution of Australia that every elected member of the parliament of Australia should have
loyalty towards their own nation and must not be influenced by the other nation states. Till date it
has been stated that none of the member of the parliament has been disqualified to stand in
election or to be inside the parliament.

2INSTITUTION LAW OF GOVERNANCE
As mentioned in section 44(i) of the constitution of Australia, there are several issues that
has arisen by the provisions. The issues that has been raised by the interpretation of the
Australian constitution are as follows:
The initial issue that was raised is about the acknowledgement and meaning of allegiance,
adhering to foreign power and loyalty. There are some requirements of providing the difference
between the subject and the citizen that has also been highlighted in this issue.
• The extension of dual citizenship among the Australian citizens has also been
identified as second issue.
• Third and the last issue that has been highlighted is the requirement of the
reasonable steps that must be taken by an individual to give up the citizenship of other country.
According to the case Sykes v Clearly, Australia High Court held obiter dicta that Sykes
v Cleary , Mr. Delacretaz and Mr. Kardamitsisand, the candidates of the Australian labor party
and of liberal party has been disqualified to be chosen as the member of parliament under
subsection 44(I). But it has been stated that the judgment was focus on the disqualification of Mr.
cleary but not on the disqualification of Mr. Kardamitsisand and Mr. Delacretaz.
In the case of Sykes v Cleary there was two statements given by the high court of
Australia which are subjected to the interpretation of the sub Section 44 subjected to the
interpretation of the sub Section 44(I).
First statement given by the court stated that citizenship of any other country of any
individual is to be judged by the law of the country and the related individual is the citizen of
Australia.

3INSTITUTION LAW OF GOVERNANCE
The second statement that has been stated by the court is that any person holding
citizenship of any other country should not be excluded from being elected in the parliament
until the person takes step to give up the dual citizenship.
According to another case of Sue vs Hill 1999 the Australia High Court delete the effect
and interpretation of the above mentioned section. In the above mentioned case the court meant
the word foreign power to comprise to comprise the nation of UK and Commonwealth.
The Section 44(i) of the Constitution of Australia has continued to create havoc in the
Australian political system. Creative problems for minor parties as well as for the major parties.
It can be stated as the crisis of the constitution against the policy of multiculturalism of Australia.
A new question has been raised by the above mentioned discussion is that whether the
Constitution be amended to stop giving importance to the section 44(I).
There is a clear requirement of amendment of this section that has been seen by the
current events and incidents. The primary commitment of every individual is towards Australia
that has been stated by the provision. According to modern law, many citizens of Australia holds
dual citizenship which has created havoc in the functioning of the Parliament because of the
history of multiculturalism of Australia (Alarian and Goodman 2017).
The above-mentioned section states that this principle can be inconsistent because the
country should be governed by the representative of the people. This section has been said to be
inappropriate because half of the Australian population is born in the other nation or their parents
are born in abroad. The amendment if this principle is possible because it is inapplicable. As per

4INSTITUTION LAW OF GOVERNANCE
the section 128 of the Constitution of Australia any law can be amended but there are some
procedures to be followed. In the above-mentioned case the requirement to amend this section of
the Constitution is totally unavoidable and it must not be a problematic task. There should be a
revised proposal to amend the Constitution and it should have the criteria in it that would assure
the candidates who are in favor to amend this section of the Constitution to meet the eligibility to
amend (Mazzolari 2017).
This principle of not allowing a person to be the member of the Parliament as they hold
dual citizenship is not only applied in Australia as well as in other states like Israel, Egypt and
Sri Lanka. But there are several other countries who hold dual citizenship like India Indonesia
and China. This principle was created so that allegiance and loyalty must be there among the
citizens. The United States of America follows the principle of natural born that can only run the
presidential election. Because of this principle there was a lot of controversial parts for the
former presidential election of Barrack Obama. In Myanmar the married foreigners are
prohibited from participating in the elections. That is why Aung Sao's daughter Aung San Suu
Kyi who was a famous revolutionary was not elected to the president of the state. A post named
“state counsellor” was invented by her to run the government of the country. The law of Mexico
prohibits the migrants from organizing presidential campaigns and taking part in presidential
elections but also prohibits their children as well to take part in presidential elections. There are
other rules of Mexican law is that if any Mexican does not submit their passport of any other
country are not permissible to take part in police force or fly an airplane or be a captain of the
ship. These concepts have been brought out from their identity. According to the case of Sam
Dastari, an illustration has been given to this treacherous act that he was a member of the
parliament of Australia who has been currently accused for holding dual citizenship as he was on

5INSTITUTION LAW OF GOVERNANCE
the position of Senator and after that he made declarations to China that he has taken bribes from
the companies of China who have links with the company of china (Harpaz and Mateos 2018).
In the concluding part it can be mentioned that the section 44(I) of the Constitution of
Australia, forbids any individual to hold double citizenship of any other nation states to be the
member of the Parliament of Australia as to assure that he or she is not in the influence of any
kind of power of the other nation states. There were many arguments that was held and debated
by the Australian high court in the famous cases like Sue v Hill and Sykes v Cleary. This idea of
dual citizenship did not even exist when this section has been formed in the Australian
Constitution. As Australia has multicultural history, there were lot of problems held because of
this provision to run the Parliament smoothly and efficiently. The section 128 lays the provisions
of the procedure of amendment of the section of the Constitution of Australia as it was proposed
to be amended. This section explains that any law of the constitution which is to be altered
should be passed by the absolute majority in both the houses of the Commonwealth Parliament
and if both the houses of the parliament passes the law then it goes to the submission procedure
to referendum for at least two months after it has been passed by the parliament but it will be for
less than six months This proposed plan to amend the section 44(i) will help the government of
Australia and the constitution of Australia to function properly and effectively and no havoc will
be created in future.

6INSTITUTION LAW OF GOVERNANCE
References
Alarian, H.M. and Goodman, S.W., 2017. Dual Citizenship Allowance and Migration Flow: An
Origin Story. Comparative Political Studies, 50(1), pp.133-167.
Harpaz, Y. and Mateos, P., 2018. Strategic citizenship: negotiating membership in the age of
dual nationality.
Leblang, D., 2017. Harnessing the diaspora: Dual citizenship, migrant return remittances.
Comparative Political Studies, 50(1), pp.75-101.
Mazzolari, F., 2017. Determinants of naturalization: the role of dual citizenship laws.
Sue v Hill - [1999] HCA 30
Sykes v Cleary - [1992] HCA 60