AUSTRALIA IN THE WORLD
Our parliamentarians should be Australian-only
BY
Rodger Shanahan
@RodgerShanahan
the Sydney Morning Herald's Adam Gartrell has signalled its opposition to the requirement for single nationality, calling it '..a relic of a bygone era, completely out-of-date and at odds with the multicultural melting pot that is modern Australia'.
I beg to differ and, in contrast to Gartrell, would praise the authors of the Constitution (although they probably didn't know it at the time) for being peculiarly far-sighted and equipping our legislature well for a multicultural society and a globalised world. Parliaments are unique institutions in that they are supposedly required to advance the national interest, not a national interest. And if a parliamentarian were to be a citizen of two countries, the real or perceived concern is that at some stage that parliamentarian, in whatever role they perform, would be required to place the national interests of one of their countries of citizenship over the other. Not only should they not be asked to do that, Australians should be confident that their politicians will never have to face that situation.
In my opinion, Gartrell has confused ethnicity with nationality. It is testament to Australia that we absorb hundreds of thousands of immigrants from a range of backgrounds who add to our collective good. But it is also a tough world out there, as states try to advance their interests in any way possible. Donations from individuals linked to the Chinese government with a view to influencing Australian policy cost Sam Dastyari his frontbench position, for instance. And Russian influencing operations are gathering increasing prominence in the West. It is a reality that states seek to influence outcomes in other states via nefarious ways to benefit their own interests. In these cases, it is foreign states seeking to influence the citizens of other countries – but how much more likely would it be that states would seek to influence their own citizens operating in other countries' parliaments?
In this environment, it is essential that Australia's politicians at least are focused on a single aim. Dual citizenship may well work for non-politicians – a second passport makes it easier for people to travel, work and do business, own property and invest throughout the world. But surely when one seeks to enter federal politics, there is only enough room in an individual's heart and mind for loyalty to one country. Australia's citizenry should demand nothing less. Advocates of removing the need for possessing only Australian citizenship point out the number of people in the population who hold dual citizenship and are thus ineligible to enter politics. The reality is that they are only ineligible for as long as they remain loyal to another country – simply renounce their other citizenship and they become eligible. If one feels too connected to another country to relinquish its citizenship, then perhaps they are not suited to focusing on advancing Australia's national interest – ditto if it's an inconvenience to ditch the second passport.
豪州の重国籍問題
一般人のレベルの重国籍は、重国籍保持者にとっては旅行したり、仕事したり、投資したりする場合便利であり、悪いことではない。
ただ、政治家となると話は別だ、と。
外国政府は、豪州の国民に寄付などして当該国家の国益のために豪州の政策に影響力を与えようとしていることは稀ではない。 豪州の国民が重国籍で、当該外国政府の国民でもあったら、なおさら、その重国籍保持者を使って影響を与えようするものではないか？と。
ーーー例えば、中国政府は中国国籍と豪州国籍をもった議員をつかって豪州の政策に影響を与えようとするだろう、ということでしょうね。
で、国会議員たるものは、他の国よりも自国の利益を一番、尊重してもらわないと困るし、選挙民に対してもそのように信頼してもらうことは大切である、と。
重国籍の人が議員になれないなら、重国籍の人は、政治ができなくなるではないか、という人がいるが、そんなのことはないーーたんに、他方の国籍を放棄しすればいいだけの話。
もし、たかだが、国籍が放棄できないほど、その国に愛着があるというなら、豪州の国益推進の役を任せるわけにもいくまい、と。
ーーただ、そこまで、疑うのなら、他方の国籍を放棄したら、その他方の国への忠誠心を放棄したことになる、と考えるのは甘いんじゃないしょうかね？
愛国心の強い青年がいて、韓国に忠誠を誓っているが、国籍は日本、名前も日本風だが、韓国の国益のために働いている人物など想像に難くないでしょ。
逆に、重国籍保持していても、極端に日本愛国主義の人だっているわけです。重国籍じゃないですけど、韓国系日本人のなかには、特攻で死んでいった人もいる。
重国籍を認めた上で、議員に候補する際には申告してもらえば、候補者の言動とあわせて、選挙民の判断資料になって、公明正大でいいんじゃないですかね。
