Should Non-citizens And Disenfranchised Citizens Be Given Voting Rights In Australia?

Should voting rights extend to all persons within Australia? Discuss with respect to non-citizens and disenfranchised citizens.

Provide footnotes and a bibliography in compliance with the Australian Guide to Legal Citation. Also only use Australian, Victoria case law and legislation.

The constitutional tradition of voting rights in Australia

In many countries, the right to vote is regarded as basic right of the citizens. The voting is most critical way that an individual may affect governmental decision making every citizen must have the right and opportunity without any limitation or without any dissimilarity. Voting takes place in respect of national or local election at large scale every person should have right to vote and to be voted at honest and open periodic elections. In most the states, the eligible voters can vote in the elections. However, the only few countries allow the non-citizens to vote in the election. The non-citizen is regarded in relation to elections for the representative. Australia also permits some foreign citizens to give their vote in federal elections.

In this essay, the question of whether voting rights should extend to all the persons including non-citizen and disenfranchised citizens in Australia.

In the constitutional tradition of the Australia, the voting right is identified as basic right. Every citizen of Australia should have right to take participation in the self-governing life of the Union. The voting right in the election is connected to the right of participation of the politicians. The voting right is conferred upon the citizens of the polity with valid limitations including due to age, mental condition and some criminal sentences.

The voting right is a general rule, connected to the nationality of the country. Some nations place the additional situation on the eligibility to give vote such as residence in the nation of the election. The requirement related to residence replies to concerns over the capacity of permanent citizens residing out of country to give the significant vote as they are supposed not to be adequately related to political reality in nation of origin.  

The disenfranchisement refers to the loss of the democratic rights. The absence of permissible provisions for the voting from out of country is not disenfranchisement as it only provides the implementation of the active electoral right more problematic when not removing it. The disenfranchisement because of residence out of country can take the formula of positive necessity such as minimum time of living in the nation or the bad one, loss of democratic rights after some time in out of the country. Some democratic law of country involve minimum time of residence in the region where the voters may get the registration. However, this is not the subject of minimum necessities for the house in their nation .

Disenfranchisement and its impact on democratic rights

The necessary requirements are required to get understand for the fulfilment of object of the qualifications of citizens as voters. The loss of democratic rights because of time spent out of country should also be considered as lawmakers. The voting rights are dispossessed of the chances to give vote in the national elections. The host nations do not deliberate the democratic rights in national elections to non-national. When place has been taken by the disenfranchisement even if the citizens live in other state, the loss of democratic rights can trespass on the freedom of movement and residence within the state in Australia .

Most of the countries do not oblige their citizens out of country to register with the national authorities. Not all countries have process to render the notice to the authorities of the movement of disenfranchisement out of country. The less number of the citizens living out of country registering to give vote in the elections of the nation has been used to validate the disenfranchisement because of the far-ranging indifference of the citizens abroad in taking participation in the administrative life at the home.

The Disenfranchisement of nationals residing out of country is founded on the statement that they lack the information of the administrative authenticity in their nation of nationality, in that way divesting them of the capability to cast a well versed and the significant vote. It is argued that non-citizens are not directly influenced by the actions of the government. They do not pay income taxes in the nation of origin. As per this, some point to the charges of giving vote from out of country and the chances of scam.

The destabilised connection between the expatriates and their nation of origin does not however lead to a loss of citizenship. The citizenship is the temporary connection between a public and its nationals. In respect of the rights of the citizens and duties of the citizens, the major factor is nationality connection with the state. The people lived out of country still have duties originating from their race so that they must also be deliberated the conforming powers. The appropriate legacy rule for example depends in the majority of the nations on the nationality of the deceased. Moreover, even long-term people out of country might and often come back to the nation of origin and will then be unrestrictedly in by national legislature .

The judgement to give voting rights to the non-citizens is the consideration of the constitutional culture of the country. The Australia is refugee country. Australia allowed the people to come in the country and live as permanent residents. Australia also allowed the people to enter and work in the country without any restriction. This permission of the Australia creates the little distinction between the public rights and the public rights of the people of Australia or the citizens. The permanent residents have most permissible responsibilities and the powers or privileges. Here is exception that they will accept the nationality of the Australia after the duration of habitation. The naturalisation rates in the Australia are stated to be about seventy to eighty per cent.

The destabilised connection between expatriates and their nation of origin

There is a solid culture of democratic participation in the government system of Australia. It was held by the high court that rich jurisprudence around the legal obligation that the parliament be selected by an individual on the direct basis as per the section 7 of the constitution and section 24 of the Constitution. The section 7 and section 24 are the foundations for the limits on the power of parliaments to make law around the procedure of voting. These sections also use to make limitations on the powers of parliament of the authorise the powers to limits the voting powers of the criminals and stop parliament limiting the option of registration in the central election. The court also ensures that the franchise is as extensive as possible. Many cases have been suggested by the many magistrates, notwithstanding the lack of express term to this effect that constitution leads to the least Franchise that cannot be eliminated from the parliament .

 Further, the terms mentioned in the section 7 of the constitution and section 24 of the constitution is the base of the legal independence of political announcement. There is different opinion of the different judges in the high court on the question whether the independence of the political interaction is restricted to the people of Australia or citizens. In the case of Cunliffe v Commonwealth [1994] HCA 44- 182 CLR 272, it is stated by the Mason CJ that Non-citizens who are exist in the nation such as citizens are permitted to the security gave by the constitution, Australian law, rules and regulations. It monitors that Non-citizens actually in the nation are permitted to invoke the implied independence of the interaction, especially when they are performing that independence for the object or in order to develop the status as applicants and refugees or proclaiming the claim in against the government or taking the security of the government. Similarly, it was also stated that when an alien in this nation is takes the security of the common law involving the security of guarantee of constitution, commands, and exclusions, they stand outside the persons of the commonwealth whose independence of the political communication is the necessary .

The independence makes focus on the procedure off voting. If the non-citizens take the participation in the democratic government, then their capacity to involve in the communication in respect of the voting process will garner the similar security in the implied independence as is afforded citizens. It is obvious by the construction of the freedom of the high court is that communication matters a lot. Speakers do not matter. In this way, it is the communication, which has influence over the voting procedure. It is not so easy to consider the reverse of the extension. The encompassing the franchise to permanent citizen in the national election or state election is constant with long-term tendency. It will motivate the commitment and the contribution in self-governing procedure in the Australian values .

Legal independence of political announcement

Five major debate in respect of right to vote of non-citizens or disenfranchised citizens in Australia-

1. The foreigners are required to earn their right to vote- it is argued that migrants require to prove important devoted effort in respect of the right to vote, which is why voting is limited to the citizens. The migrants have left their home. It is not the mistake of the foreign residents that a government has established obstacles to the citizenship. In many cases, the permanent people have made more promises and assurances to Australia than Australia born people.
2. The asymmetry dilemma- there are many cases, where Australian citizens living out of country, notwithstanding  living in the nation for possibly years on end, are still eligible to vote. However, the permanent people may survive in Australia for the years on end, but not eligible to give vote. The problem points the issue of relating citizenship with rights of voting.
3. Second class citizens- it is argued by many supporters that it is a feeling of second citizen for foreign residents, when to exclude them from the voting. Non-citizens are at the risk of partiality. The interest of non-citizens can be ignored by the politicians. The reason is that politicians know that this community cannot go in their against. They know that these members cannot vote in their against.
4. The dual citizenship problem- in some countries, the dual citizenship is not permitted. If permanent residents became the citizens of Australia, then they have to reject citizenship of the nation where they took born. It is argued by the supporters that permanent people must basically become the citizens. It is not reasonable to expect the people to lose the connection with their family and the homeland even though they have dedicated their new life to Australia.
5. The non-citizens will influence the political landscape- it is also argued that including the many new people to give vote, may alter the political land. This idea and opinion should be considered by the lawmakers at the time of creation of law. Thus, the voting rights must extend to all person of the community because they are members of the community.

Conclusion:

As per the above analysis, it is concluded that the voting powers should be necessarily extend to the non-citizens. There are two grounds of the case for extending the voting rights to the non-citizen in the national elections and state elections. Firstly, it is found that there are principle reasons in self-governing theory to encourage an addition of the rights to vote to the non-citizens. Secondly, the effects of the disenfranchised citizens are also discussed in the context of Australia’s democratic system. In a world, where the movement of persons is enhancing and people’s commitments are not limited to their nation of citizenship, the case for expansion of the non-citizen to permanent residents is a convincing one.

Jean-Thomas Arrighi and Baubock Rainer ,‘A multilevel puzzle: Migrants’ voting rights in national and local elections’  (2017) 56 European journal of political research 619.

Bowler  Shawn , Denemark David ,  Donovan Todd  and McDonnell Duncan, ‘ Right?wing populist party supporters: Dissatisfied but not direct democrats’ (2016) 56 European Journal of Political Research  70.

Caramani Daniele  and Grotz Florian ,‘ Beyond citizenship and residence? Exploring the extension of voting rights in the age of globalization’ (2015) 22 Democratization 799.

Schutter De, Helder  and Lea  Ypi,’ The British Academy Brian Barry Prize Essay: Mandatory Citizenship for Immigrants’ (2015) 45 British Journal of Political Science 235.

Galligan Brian and Morton FL Ted,  ‘Australian exceptionalism: Rights protection without a bill of rights’ (2017) 25 In Protecting Rights Without a Bill of Rights 27.

Guarnizo Luis E. ‘The fluid, multi-scalar, and contradictory construction of citizenship’ (2017) 35 In Remaking urban citizenship 19.

Favell Adrian , Philosophies of integration: Immigration and the idea of citizenship in France and Britain(Palgrave Macmillan UK,1998) .

Hamer Paul ‘Maori in Australia: voting rights and behaviour’(2018) 4  Policy Quarterly 22.

Hill Lisa  ‘Does compulsory voting violate a right not to vote?’ (2015) 50  Australian Journal of Political Science 61.

Justwan Florian  ‘Disenfranchised minorities: trust, definitions of citizenship, and noncitizen voting rights in developed democracies’ (2015) 36  International Political Science Review  373.

Turner Byan S  ‘We are all denizens now: on the erosion of citizenship’ (2016) 20  Citizenship studies 679.

Koopmans Ruud and Michalowski Ines, ‘Why do states extend rights to immigrants? Institutional settings and historical legacies across 44 countries worldwide’ (2016) 50 Comparative Political Studies 41.

Lafleur Jean –Michel ‘The enfranchisement of citizens abroad: variations and explanations’ (2015) 22 Democratization 840.

Nunn Caitlin, McMichael Celia, Gifford Sandra  M. and Correa-Velez Ignacio, ‘ Mobility and security: the perceived benefits of citizenship for resettled young people from refugee backgrounds’ (2015) 42 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies  382.

Hammar Tomas , Democracy and the nation state( Routledge New York ,2017).

McNair Brain  ,An introduction to political communication(Routledge New York ,2017) .