So, it is unconstitutional to have dual citizens in parliament but it is ok to have an unelected and virtually unaccountable foreign monarch as the nation's head of state. Go figurehead hey!

minotaur,

She doesn't vote on day to day things.

Citizenship - dual or otherwise - is but one way to view commitment to Australia and suitability as a nominee at election time.

What about foreign financial allegiance? I have in mind one very high ranking politician who happens to hold significant investments through entities registered for tax minimisation purposes (aren't they all?) in the Cayman Islands.

This demonstrated allegiance to the Cayman Islands is deeper and more meaningful than anything demonstrated in the cases of the Famous Five.

Constitutional amendment now! When will the referendum be?

Is Mise, that is true but beside the point. The fact remains that all our elected Federal representatives swear allegiance to the Queen...who is a foreign monarch. They don't swear allegiance to Australia or Australians and that should be an issue that gets far more attention/scrutiny than it does.

It should be noted that when the Constitution was drawn up and implemented there was no such thing as an Australian citizen. Up until the Citizenship Act 1948 came into effect that everyone born in Australia was considered a British citizen. Of course, that 'begs the question' as to just how many previous politicians were in fact dual citizens?

@ Minotaur,

Your argument for release from subservience to the Monarch is easy to agree with.

A similar case can be made for removal of the Governor-General.

How many chiefs do the forces need? IIRC, beside the GG (Sir Peter Cosgrove, representing Queen Elizabeth II), there are also the PM (Malcolm Turnbull), a Minister for Defence (Marise Payne), Minister for Defence Industry (Christopher Pyne) and the Chief of the Defence Force (Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin).

That's half a dozen.

Given that Australia no longer has significant industry, Pyne is essentially surplus to requirements, as also QEII and the GG.

That would bring considerable clarity to a confused situation, plus serious cost savings. Plus remedying the current situation, whereby the armed services are beholden to a foreigner.

For further simplification, consider amalgamating the Army, Navy and Air Force with Foreign Affairs, Trade, Border Protection, ASIO and Immigration, all under Peter Dutton. He'd love the role.

Just think of the money that would save!

I've just read an excellent summation on this issue
in a letter in today's Herald-Sun (31st Oct. 2017)
written by a Graham Williams.

Graham sums things up much better than I could have done
and I agree with him wholeheartedly. He writes:

"The recent High Court decisions highlight the absurdity
of Section 44 of the Constitution. What purpose does it
have?
While federal politicians with dual citizenship are denied
access to top secret data, that same information crosses
the desks of military personnel, civil servants and
contractors, with the same citizenship status on a daily
basis.

Neither the British parliament nor the US Congress, both of
which served as models for the Australian parliament,
prohibit dual citizens from holding public office.

What would the High Court have decided on the fate of some
of our prime ministers, all of whom were eligible for
parliament on the grounds of the constitutional requirement
that they by subjects of the Queen?

That was deemed sufficient a condition for eligibility, but
the High Court has overturned that ruling.

What would have become of Billy Hughes, our wartime prime
minister born in London? How about the Scottish-born
Andrew Fisher or the Staffordshire-born Joseph Cook?

What would the High Court have thought of Chris Watson,
who thought he was born in the UK but was actually born in
Valparaiso, Chile?

Surely, it's time to get rid of this archaic anomaly,
drafted in a bygone era of different standards and
expectations, yet which continues to disrupt the functions
of government."

Hear, Hear!