Opinion: Matt Canavan’s loss shows absurdity of section 44

N THE 106 years since federation, more than half the politicians ruled as ineligible to sit in Parliament, or suspected of being so, have been among those elected last July.

IN THE 106 years since federation, more than half the politicians ruled as ineligible to sit in Parliament, or suspected of being so, have been among those elected last July.

Matt Canavan has stood aside from Cabinet. Picture: AAP/Tim Marsden

Yesterday, Nationals Senator Matt Canavan became the third to have his eligibility questioned because of apparently holding Italian citizenship – something that occurred a decade ago, when he was an adult and without his knowledge or consent.

It borders on absurd that Canavan could be tripped by something he did not do as this only arose because his mother took out Italian citizenship in 2007.

Canavan has stood aside from Cabinet, where he has been one of the Government’s and his party’s best performers, and his position will be decided by the High Court. If there was ever a case where Section 44 of the Constitution should not apply as far as citizenship is concerned, this is it.

But there could be a case made that if Canavan is not caught by Section 44, the Greens’ Larissa Waters should have her situation examined. She was born in Canada, but left there as an infant and had no reasonable expectation to believe she had remained a Canadian citizen.

It is difficult to make a strong argument that we should do away with the prohibition on people having dual citizenship being eligible to sit in the Parliament, but the Canavan case suggests we need a clear ruling on it.

The Government and the Nationals will want to keep Canavan. While the circumstances are embarrassing, they are clearly not of his making and it would be a travesty if he was excluded on what would surely be a technicality.