I'm sorry Don, but your essay fails because of a false premise, i.e., that one can serve two masters, without eventually needing to decide where final loyalty lies.
We have the same head of state as Canada, New Zealand and most of the commonwealth.
However, if we are competing with the Uk for an export order they could also fill? The crown and our head of state will go to bat for the UK and against us.
Moreover, in every other case of dual citizenship, there will eventually be a conflicting interest somewhere? Even if covert or undefined?
One cannot, however, presume the same for citizens born here of dual citizens and obtain their dual citizenship via archaic laws.
That said, swearing allegiance at a citizenship ceremony should be recognized in our law as any and all allegiance automatically transferring here to us and ours!
Moreso, if we are both allies and share the same head of state, i.e., fellow Anzacs?
One cannot expect more than to stand in front of a bullet aimed at a fellow Anzac, or call down shell fire on one's own forward position, to prove both loyalty and allegiance! As well as mutually shared interest!
Alan B.

The world is also trying to convince everyone that multiculturalism is good.

Looks like the world is not very intelligent, so whatever they think is a positive thing is more than likely a bad thing for citizens as a whole.

I'm not particularly perturbed by the interruption to the comfort zone of politicians.

I'm not surprised that politicians lie, on filling out application forms. Even using the excuse of ignorance; ignorance of the law, is no excuse before the law, not for the common folk.

No sympathy at all for this. They were rightly sacked.
And constitutional change, never ever.

There is a corporate puppet regularly posts articles on OLO, who would be rubbing his hands with glee at this suggestion.

According to David Flint the writers of the Constitution did not intend citizens of Britain, New Zealad and Canada to be classed as foreign. Further, both the Senate and the House had the power to make judgment on the issue. The whole costly, sorry affair is just more proof that our political class does not have a clue.

As a horse can be elected as a Roman Consul, why can't the people elect a dual-citizen, or even a horse for that matter, as their representative in parliament?

Section 44, which was supposedly designed to hurt politicians, rather restricts the ability of electors to exercise democracy.

One day, I hope not in the near future, on seeing that the Chinese invasion is near, nearly all Australians will take up citizenship of some other country to which they could flea. The only ones who won't do so, will be Chinese Australians who are loyal at heart to the Communist party. They or their parents would have of course renounced their Chinese citizenship long before and so they would remain the only ones eligible to be elected, and subsequently hand the keys to Australia to the Chinese on a golden platter. Great outcome, isn't it?

Totally disagree with you on this one Don. As Alan says, you can't serve 2 masters. I also agree that we must make it definite that swearing loyalty to Oz automatically relinquishes any captainship of any other country.

With representation, I don't believe that any amount of swearing loyalty can be trusted to eliminate previously felt loyalty or sympathy for a previous country. It should be made totally impossible for anyone not born in Oz to stand for any elected post. Anyone wishing to govern us must first be one of us by birth, not some minor citizenship oath.