The election result could be challenged in the High Court, after the publication of hundreds of eligibility checklists late last week failed to settle the section 44 havoc that has plagued Parliament.

Key points: Each one of the election's 1,514 candidates has completed an eligibility checklist

Each one of the election's 1,514 candidates has completed an eligibility checklist The checklists do not guarantee each candidate is eligible

The checklists do not guarantee each candidate is eligible Experts fear preference flows from ineligible candidates could be grounds for a High Court challenge

The Government and legal experts are at odds over the risk, and a referendum appears to be the only way to settle the issue once and for all.

The Government believes an outcome in a seat can only be challenged when a disqualified candidate is elected.

But that may not be the case, according to constitutional law expert and University of New South Wales law dean George Williams.

He said preferences flowing from an ineligible candidate could be enough for a High Court challenge.

"Where an unsuccessful candidate is found to be ineligible as a result of section 44, their disqualification could be used to challenge the eligibility of a parliamentarian whose election hinged upon the disqualified candidate's preference flows," he said.

A 2018 report into section 44 prepared by a parliamentary committee echoed this view.

It also raised the possibility of deliberate manipulation of disqualification rules to overturn an otherwise valid election.

"Even the suggestion of this type of manipulation is an unacceptable risk to our democratic process," it stated.

Ineligible potential

Jono Young is running for the Australian Progressives party in Longman in 2019. ( Supplied )

Jono Young, who is running for Australian Progressives party, is one of 1,514 candidates who completed the section 44 checklist as part of nominating for the election.

The carpenter told the ABC he was confident his disclosures showed he was eligible to be an MP.

But there is a "slim possibility" that despite his best efforts, he could turn out to be ineligible given the circumstances around his parentage — he has never known his father.

"It wasn't necessarily a long-term relationship if you know what I mean, so I don't think there was a lot of information shared in that relationship," he said.

Mr Young conceded he may be found to be ineligible if his father came forward with a foreign affiliation.

"I do think we need some reform on the policy and the rules around it, even if it's a database that makes candidates able to access that information and makes it easier relinquish dual citizenship," he said.

High Court challenge

Mr Young is taking on Labor's Susan Lamb in the marginal seat of Longman in Queensland.

At a by-election last year, brought about by her resignation relating to section 44, the major parties won barely two thirds of the first preference vote.

The flows of the nine minor party candidates lifted her to victory.

It is likely at least some of Mr Young's preferences will flow to Ms Lamb at this election.

If the contest is tight and Mr Young or any of the other candidates discover they are ineligible, that could be enough for a loser to challenge the result in the High Court, according to Professor Williams and the work of the parliamentary committee.

The report recommended a referendum to alter the constitution, but the major parties have not pursued this option.

When queried, neither party would address whether or not they were considering the option of challenging a result due to ineligible preference flows.