It’s time for Australian legislators and jurists to end a juvenile tussle about citizenship and who can serve in government. Their future depends on it.

There is almost daily hysteria in Australia over a formerly obscure clause in the constitution that bars dual nationals from sitting in the federal parliament. The question is which legislators are now disqualified because they did (or didn‘t) know that their birth abroad -- or that of their parents -- sometimes brought with it eligibility for, or outright granted, citizenship somewhere else.

Of course, the whole distinction is wrong-headed. For all that Australians like to see themselves as the envy of the world and a sophisticated bunch, parochialism may be making a comeback in this era of global populism.

The country has done very well from the expansion of international trade, finance and tourism engineered by Prime Ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating in the 1980s and 1990s. Successive governments, both Labor and Liberal have trumpeted their commitment to an open global system.

It’s hard to find an Australian politician or business leader who doesn’t boast about the economy’s formidable track record: 25 years without a recession. It’s an achievement worth trumpeting.

Despite its perch in the Group of 20, the economy is relatively small and the country thinly populated. Any government ought to count on the best available Australians willing to serve. Many of those may have strong links to the global economy, have lived abroad or even have acquired an additional passport along the way. They can be just as patriotic about Australia, perhaps even more so for the experience.

You would never know it from the quality of current political discourse. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who should know better and in many other ways has been a very effective ambassador for the country, has even taken to describing some sort of dark conspiracy -- from New Zealand of all places. She spoke of a cabal between the opposition parties in both countries somehow out to wreck the Australian government.

The constitutional policy barring dual nationals from parliament also, by default, bars them from serving in the cabinet. At last count, six legislators, mostly from the Liberal Party and its coalition partner, the National Party, may have fallen afoul of the rule. The High Court will rule on the matter.

Beyond legal issues, the fracas is also about Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s struggle with a legislature his coalition controls with a majority of one seat in the lower house. If just one of his members is disqualified and a special election is called, his two-year administration may be curtains.

Take a step back and it’s also about whether, in this global era of populism, the country still has the will to integrate deeper with the rest of the world. Keating used to say Australia was an industrial museum before reforms he drove opened, transformed and strengthened its economy. He’s right.

Australia has one of the highest proportions of foreign-born residents among democratic countries. Time to make better use of that tremendous asset, and the country’s sizable diaspora.

National Party leader Barnaby Joyce, whose recently uncovered New Zealand citizenship was the catalyst for Bishop’s claims, is among the loudest opponents of foreign investment. Turnbull has also imposed new restrictions on working visas.

Ultimately, it’s up to the High Court. A nation’s top court can largely do as it wishes. This isn’t a dry piece of constitutional scholarship; it’s about the country’s role in the world and whether it wants to attract the best talent.

For the sake of both nations and the global economy, let us hope that if a dual national like my daughter wishes to run for governor of Colorado or the Australian parliament, that decision will be made only by her. Modern voters, not antiquated constitutions, should choose among the candidates.


By Daniel Moss

Daniel Moss writes and edits articles on economics for Bloomberg View. -- Ed.


(Bloomberg)