Multinationalism seems to be a slippery beast.

If the intention is to verify that the MP's primary allegiance is to Australia, I suggest a revision to s44i of the Australian Constitution.

How about requiring the aspirants to demonstrate that 100% of their financial resources are held in Australia and subject to Australian taxation?

That might cause some discomfort to the Cayman Islands brigade, but so what?

If you can and must get on the electoral roll! Then are compelled by law to vote, as a so called legitimate citizen with alleged responsibilities, then as a tax paying member of the bona fide electorate, not in receipt of government money, you also surely have a right to seek nomination! No taxation without representation!

As one other poster has noted. Our constitution and section 44 has been around for years; and when it was written, Aussies, Canadians, Kiwis and Brits, Indians, Indian expats, Malaysians, Malaysian expats Maltese, and Maltese expats, Hong Kong chinese and expats, Falkland Islanders and expats, Pitcairn Island and expats, Norfolk Islanders and expats and a few others, were all eligible to stand! Given they weren't foreigners by definition!

Moreover, some of our pre 1943 federal representatives came from many other places. England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and New Zealand, why one of our early PM's was a Kiwi and you can't get more foreign than that? Ha, ha.

Just because Britain effectively got out of the Commonwealth. And became a member in name only? When she joined the EU? Shouldn't have changed the original intent and purpose of the Australian document and the specifically Australian laws, pertaining to it!

And should stand as written and intended, at least where the same Queen that is our head of state, is also their head of state!

Except for indigenous Australians, we are all boat people who came from elsewhere after 1770. And all sprang from foreigners!

Maybe if the high court also saw it that way? Nearly all the current parliamentarians could shuffle off to Buffalo?

However, given the original intent of the British authors of our unaltered constitution? All those coming from the UK and former British colonies weren't then foreigners! That definition should still be the case in our still unaltered constitution!

Save the new and extremely narrow, interpretation (shifting the goal post after the kick has been taken?) by the (law changing?) high court?
Alan B.

The High Court won't be interested in Canavan's Mum or the fact that Canavan hasn't set foot in Italy.
They are only interested in the constitutional interpretation of section 44(i) : is he a dual citizen if so precedent dictates that he cannot sit in our parliament.

If the High Court change precedent and say that his ignorance gets him off, then the Greens are back too.

The 2 Greens have resigned. They won't be back.

"That said, I believe there's a case for constitutional reform via overdue referenda, to reinstall the authors of the constitution intentions.

We dont need any referenda, all we need are senators who should never be their unless they had at least some knowledge of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution and who have some loyalty to the constitution.

If they had that Senator-in-exile Culleton would have his seat back because any senator with any committment knows that:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 50

Each House of the Parliament may make rules and orders with respect to:

(i) the mode in which its powers, privileges, and immunities may be exercised and upheld;
(ii) the order and conduct of its business and proceedings either separately or jointly with the other House.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION SECT 47 Disputed elections

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises

no need for court cases. why are are all the other senators saying not supporting the constitution and senator Culleton?