If you want to be a politician

isn't it also necessary to be a citizen of the country in whose parliament you intend to sit?
The founding fathers of this country thought so. They wrote sec.44 of the Constitution with that in mind. 
People say things have changed since then. Yes, the makeup of the population has changed dramatically. Downunder has gone from being a fairly simple mix of the first inhabitants and white settlers mostly from England to a much more complex mix of people who have migrated from all over the world. 
Interesting? Yes. 
But does it mean that we should change sec. 44 of the Constitution and allow people who hold dual (or even triple) nationality to represent others in parliament?  The men who wrote sec. 44 recognised that there might be circumstances when someone was not able to renounce their citizenship of another county. But, where people can, then the section says they must before they stand for election. 
Up until last year nobody really questioned that requirement. Last year one side of politics thought it was going to be able to be rid of a thorn on the other side. They challenged someone's right to be there - and won. He was returned in a by-election - an expensive by-election. Still the leader of the challenging party thought he was on to a good thing. 
Or was he? 
More questions were raised about the eligibility of other politicians. The High Court was asked to rule on their eligibility. I may get around to reading their judgments at some point  but I suspect there will be a hint of irritation in them. Some of those who claimed to have taken all the necessary steps before nominating - as they were required to do - clearly had not done so.
    "There wasn't enough time," came the wail. Sorry, I cannot sympathise. Not only do I think that sec. 44 should stay as it is but, if you want to stand for parliament, you have to prepare long beforehand - or you should.
Perhaps that is part of the problem. People don't see the role in the way they should. They want to be there for themselves, perhaps for the party they belong to, rather than the people they are supposed to represent. 
Because of the debacle there will be a by-election in this state. The seat was once held by the just retired High Commissioner to London. Now his daughter is said to be looking at running in the by-election. If she does she may not get in but she will have a far better idea than most people about what the job entails. Her grandfather was a minister in the Menzies government and later High Commissioner in London. Her great-grandfather was a Premier of this state. That may not work in her favour though. Downunderites are wary of political "dynasties".
But, there will be no doubt about her citizenship. 
The question others have to ask themselves is whether they are willing to be so committed to representing others that they are willing to renounce the citizenship of any other country. There is no room for loyalty to one country if you are representing another one in parliament is there?