While the High Court is considering this matter, no politician should be required to resign or stand down. Australia is governed by the rule of law not by the rule of allegations.
I suspect he is making a not guilty until proven guilty argument; nobody should describe politicians as being “innocent”. Ordinarily that would be the correct conclusion.
But … Some of the politicians who have resigned from the Parliament were clearly and unambiguously in breach of the Constitution. Some who have not resigned are also in clear and unambiguous breach of the Constitution. Okay – they’re hoping that the High Court “clarifies” the law – what we mere citizen-voters may consider to be a change to the Constitution in a manner other than that described in s128 of the Constitution.
What I found most challenging is this statement:
Here the allegation is of a breach of a provision, with no suggestion that it might possibly affect the carrying out of the person’s duties as a Parliamentarian or member of cabinet.
But that is precisely what section 44 suggests (emphasis added):
Any person who is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power … shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
So the PM and the speaker of the House and president of the Senate all know that there are people in the House and Senate who may very well be sitting as MPs and Senators in breach of the Constitution and do nothing until the High Court rules on the matter? Sure some of them are in a situation where the facts are in dispute and they should not be denied their day in court, but in any other profession all these people would be on “gardening leave” until that day. Why hasn’t the Governor-General asked for an explanation?