With the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommending that section 44 of the Constitution be repealed or amended, Professor David Flint is contesting how the dual citizenship fiasco has been handled.

“People deciding that they are going into politics should have exercised some care,” says the esteemed professor.

“I think it’s a terrible thing that the public has to pay for the High Court costs and the by-elections. This is completely unfair. It’s the politician’s responsibility, not the taxpayers.”

With speculation on the likelihood of a referendum mounting, Professor Flint isn’t predicting any referendum success.  

“I don’t think it would get through. There’s a strong view in the electorate that you should have a single allegiance to Australia. I don’t think Australian’s would like to see their politicians with dual allegiance.”

Professor Flint is also saying an “ originalist interpretation” should have been applied to section 44, which would have seen the parliament decide the fate of dual citizens, not the High Court.

“I think it could have been cleaned up quite simply, not cost a lot of money and not paralysed the Parliament for months.”

With the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommending that section 44 of the Constitution be repealed or amended, Professor David Flint is contesting how the dual citizenship fiasco has been handled.
&ldquo;People deciding that they are going into politics should have exercised some care,&rdquo; says the esteemed professor.
&ldquo;I think it&rsquo;s a terrible thing that the public has to pay for the High Court costs and the by-elections. This is completely unfair. It&rsquo;s the politician&rsquo;s responsibility, not the taxpayers.&rdquo;
With speculation on the likelihood of a referendum mounting, Professor Flint isn&rsquo;t predicting any referendum success.&nbsp;&nbsp;
&ldquo;I don&rsquo;t think it would get through. There&rsquo;s a strong view in the electorate that you should have a single allegiance to Australia. I don&rsquo;t think Australian&rsquo;s would like to see their politicians with dual allegiance.&rdquo;
Professor Flint is also saying an &ldquo; originalist interpretation&rdquo; should have&nbsp;been applied to section 44, which would have seen the parliament decide the fate of dual citizens, not the High Court.
&ldquo;I think it could have been cleaned up quite simply, not cost a lot of money and not paralysed the Parliament for months.&rdquo;

Join Phil O'Neil from midnight to 5.30am Tuesday to Friday.

Join Phil O'Neil from midnight to 5.30am Tuesday to Friday.

Advertisement