By Grant Wyeth  Tuesday 16 September 2014

Photo: Let's hope this silly undertaking of "gotcha" journalism provides momentum to remove Article 44(i) from our laws. (AAP: Daniel Munoz)

The campaign asking Tony Abbott to reveal whether he's a dual citizen is ridiculous, but it serves to highlight how out-dated our constitution is in our globalised age, writes Grant Wyeth.

In recent weeks political website, Independent Australia, has been publishing articles asking for Tony Abbott to reveal whether he is a dual citizen. It's been dubbed a "birther" cause, after the campaign to "prove" Barack Obama was not born on US soil (a prerequisite the US presidency).

However, as there is no question of where Abbott was born (not that there was with Obama), it is more like a "pass porter" movement.

Birth is not a requirement to political office in Australia: six prime ministers have been born in the UK, and one in Chile (technically any prime minister born before 1901 was not born in Australia either). However, holding dual citizenship currently disqualifies someone from being a member of parliament, according to Article 44(i) of the Constitution.

There is a general sense that this campaign is ridiculous. Frankly, if you can't find more substantive issues to be critical of the prime minister then you're not paying much attention. However, this has brought one important issue to light, and that is Article 44(i) of the Constitution is completely out-dated, has no real place in modern Australia, and should be rescinded.

The premise behind the article comes from an era where pompous ideas about "national loyalty" were predominant. The nation-state was yet to do the worst of its damage and still had some credibility. Granted, the concept of a "hostile state" was very real and did need to be acknowledge. However, since the end of the Cold War the number of hostile states has been reduced dramatically to only a few. The idea of a "common humanity" exists in our current era more than ever.

It must be acknowledged that there are some hostile non-state actors in today's world. Yet, if someone did have loyalties to one of these groups, I suspect they would find it very difficult to be elected. Failed rapper turned violent psychopath is hardly a personal profile to inspire the electorate.

Nowadays a "national understanding" should be considered more important for public office than a myopic "national loyalty". However, equally important for the 21st century should be a broader "international understanding". The current interconnectedness of the world demands we have politicians whose life experiences reflect this reality. "Transnationalism" is becoming a natural way for people to organise their lives.

If you will excuse the personal indulgence, a look through my Facebook friends gives a good indication of this.

Presently, I have 48 friends living in countries not of their upbringing. This constitutes 19 per cent of my total Facebook friends. If I then look at Facebook friends living in countries where they are not the dominant ethnicity, who would have strong international family links, the figure more than doubles. There is also a number of people of mixed ethnicity, an increasingly common occurrence in multicultural societies.

But even this doesn't truly illustrate the world we currently live in. The world now is understood far better by looking at a couple of examples in further detail:

One friend of mine, who has lived in London for the past 13 years, was raised in Toronto by a Portuguese mother and a father from Martinique in the Caribbean. Another is a London-born, Bangladesh-raised, Canadian university graduate living in New York City.

Biographies such as these are increasingly normal. Admittedly, these are people of high education and individual agency who have the ability to integrate themselves culturally across different regions. But as a species, high education and individual agency are qualities we should be striving towards for everyone.

While these people could best be described as the "early adopters" of this transnational lifestyle, the phenomenon is only going to increase. Global physical access will have to respond to the global digital access people across most socio-economic backgrounds are now obtaining.

The right of free movement within the European Economic Area has been a response to both this desire for freer movement, and the advantages that it brings. Which has made a European passport a golden ticket for both experience and opportunity (even with Europe's economic woes). The opportunity cost of giving up an EU passport to run for the Australian Parliament is immense, and one would have to be especially power-hungry to do it.

To deny people with international links political rights (the right to run for office), is not only unreasonable, but incredibly short-sighted in our current globalised age. Australia is undeniably cutting itself off from some major political talent by maintaining this out-dated Article.

To think that dual citizens cannot be representatives of the people is belittling. Especially in a country like Australia where a quarter of the population is born outside the country, and a further large percentage are second generation residents with significant overseas cultural ties. It could easily be said that people without such international links are unrepresentative of the Australian public.

With such large numbers of Australians being so internationally connected we should be able to rise above cheap definitions of "loyalty" and maturely embrace our diversity in both our parliament and our public debates.

The former leader of the Canadian Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff, was hounded by the Conservative Party as unfit for office due to the time he spent outside of Canada. That his talents had him lecturing at Cambridge, Oxford and Harvard Universities during these years, the top tiers of his industry, was not enough to transcend this petty nationalism.

This is a matter of great relevance to Australia, as many of our brightest minds are also required to pursue their work overseas in countries with fields of expertise greater than our own. This isn't something we should begrudge, particularly if and when they wish to bring their skills back to Australia.

Fortunately in Australia we don't have a significant culture of constitution worship like that present in the United States. Australians have the good sense to realise that as much grand foresight as our constitution's authors had, their work is not infallible. In this regard, let us hope that out of this silly undertaking of "gotcha" journalism comes the public momentum to remove Article 44(i) from our laws.

Grant Wyeth is a freelance writer and political analyst. View his full profile here.

The 'birther' barrier is holding Parliament back - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)