After a challenging few weeks, the political landscape in Tasmania is in turmoil. Owen Fitzgerlad, the federal Greens candidate for the Tasmanian seat of Franklin, has today withdrawn from the contest after finding out about his New Zealand citizenship, which he inherited from his father. In response to this unexpected turn, the Greens have been calling on voters to put Fitzgerald first on their how-to-vote cards. This unjustified move has led to vocal criticism and a real concern over how this action could divert public funding.
Neither the Trumpet of Patriots party nor Roberts has responded to ABC News’ inquiries about this unfolding drama, after multiple requests for clarification have gone unanswered. Their get out the vote postcard encourages voters to support Fitzgerald. This then leads to important questions regarding the effect of having dual citizenship on candidates and their ability to meet eligibility requirements outlined in Section 44 of the Australian Constitution.
The Implications of Dual Citizenship
As election analysts have pointed out, Fitzgerald hasn’t been the only candidate to run into dual citizenship issues in this election cycle. This is a problem other candidates will face, too. Susan Graham, Libertarian candidate Susan Graham, Trumpet of Patriots party candidate Eligibility Disputes. These complexities are due to the British nationality of her parents. You can read her qualification checklist over at the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) website. Further, it shows that both her father and mother were born in England.
In 2017, the High Court found a number of parliamentarians ineligible under provisions that disallowed dual citizenship. This decision had unforeseen consequences for Tasmanian senators Jacquie Lambie and Stephen Parry, as Robert Hortle, deputy director, Tasmanian Policy Exchange at the University of Tasmania pointed out. The possibility of an outcome like that repeating in this year’s primary has understandably caused a lot of anxiety among voters and election advocates.
“She might have renounced it later and not declared it for some reason, but it does appear — it’s like prima facie she appears to not be eligible.” – Robert Hortle
AEC deploys inflammatory rhetoric saying, No-one can know a candidate’s eligibility except for the High Court. This arbitrary decision leaves confusion and uncertainty in its wake as the election draws near.
Greens’ Voting Strategy Under Scrutiny
The Greens’ choice to direct preferences to Fitzgerald, despite his withdrawal, could prove lucrative. They are manipulating their followers into voting for a candidate with no chance of winning. This strategy might be the key to them claiming tens of thousands of dollars in public funding.
Kevin Boham, a nonpartisan consultant election analyst who worked as deputy secretary of state of Colorado, said this strategy worried him. “I think they really leave themselves open to that accusation that they’re doing it just to attract public funding,” he said. Banning new projects would be a big mistake. Though the strategy might restore party coffers, it is turning the party’s credibility with voters into sawdust.
“It’s definitely worth making sure that there’s really clear communication around whether those candidates you know are eligible for receiving funding if they get enough of the vote,” – Robert Hortle
When the Greens published their how-to-vote cards online on Sunday, it was immediately met with sharp backlash from other parties. The Liberals believe that this directive might disproportionately benefit the Greens. They argue that it could increase public funding due to votes earned through a now-ineligible candidate.
AEC Recommendations and Voting Formalities
Voters have received excellent direction from the AEC. In line with these efforts, they now recommend that when casting a ballot in the House of Representatives that every box be numbered. This guidance is critical to ensuring that every vote is counted as intended. Most critically, it prevents clerical errors and omissions that otherwise would lead to votes being declared informal.
Boham told me that because, although there’s always a savings provision. This means that even if you leave a single box blank, your vote will still be counted in the end. Here’s where it starts to get complicated. For instance, if noncitizens register and fill out a tally of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in that blank box, plus an X, it makes things messy. That’s informal.
A communications spokesperson for the Greens said clear communication around candidates’ eligibility is crucial. They claimed that “the AEC has told us that only the High Court can decide who is eligible to be a candidate.” This statement is meant to minimize voter confusion about Fitzgerald’s situation and shows the party’s commitment to transparency.
