TJ Ryan Foundation Research Associate, Hal Colebatch, writes in The Conversation (6.2.18) that the now-infamous section 44 of the Australian Constitution was a last-minute change by its authors, drafted in private and accepted out of weariness.
‘For those who take only an ordinary interest in politics, the drama over citizenship and eligibility to be a member of parliament has been puzzling. Surely these people looked at the rule book, the Australian Constitution, before deciding to stand for election? Why were their nominations accepted if they weren’t qualified?
‘Well, it’s not quite that simple. The constitution is not the rule book, but the record of a deal between the leaders of six self-governing colonies to form a federation; it covers what they wanted to cover, and it means what relevant people make it mean.
‘It doesn’t say that there has to be a prime minister, but it does say that “there shall be an Inter-State Commission”. That we do have a prime minister and don’t have an inter-state commission reflects the way relevant people have used the words in the constitution.
‘… The best course would be to start with recognising the problem, rather than searching for a preferred solution. In contemporary Australia, identities are often complex, and citizenship entitlements may be multiple and overlapping. How these are to be recognised in the qualifications for candidature demands a period of public discussion culminating in political action.’
- How the Australian Constitution, and its custodians, ended up so wrong on dual citizenship »
- Citizenship saga to dominate Parliament’s return amid new doubts »
- The coattail senators »
- The long road to a hybrid Senate »
- Referendum ‘the only way’ to solve Australia’s citizenship crisis »
- Enough is enough on section 44: it’s time for reform »
- The Section 44 soap opera: why more MPs could be in danger of being forced out »