Mum did it: the Canavan argument, citizenship and the Australian constitution

Senator Cory Bernardi of the Australian Conservatives suggested that Canavan was promoting a variant of the "dog ate my homework" excuse. "My father was Italian. We inquired into these citizenship matters many, many years ago and we found it was simply impossible to do as an adult, unless you were part of it yourself."

The always colourful Bob Katter, federal MP from Queensland, found Canavan's reasoning near ludicrous. "If you're telling me someone was made a citizen of another country without your knowledge, you'd be seriously testing my intelligence, I mean, give me a break!"

The forum Canavan will have to convince is the High Court of Australia, which will need in the order of six months, at the bare minimum, to consider the case. Given their rigid, formal interpretations of section 44, the chances for exemption are questionable.

Nothing in the provision suggests that a mental state, or volition, are necessary ingredients to be taken into account on discovering you are the national of another country. As one legal opinion voiced to AAP went, "I can't see there's suddenly any flexibility or discretion to create a consent because no one consents to citizenship." Gabrielle Appleby of UNSW prefers to see it in more problematic terms, focusing on the taking of "all reasonable steps to renounce citizenship".

The active element here is that of being entitled to a foreign nationality, and the active renunciation of it, a point made by the majority in Sykes v Cleary [No 2](1992). Having to "acquiesce" to it would perhaps be a reasonable extension (the dissenting view of Justice William Deane suggests this), but would require judicial adventurism Australian judges are not renowned for. That is a mountain Canavan and this government will have to climb.