Sorry dual citizens, you're still not allowed to serve in Australia's Parliament.

The High Court stuck by Section 44(i) of the constitution on Friday when it disqualified Barnaby Joyce, Fiona Nash, Larissa Waters, Scott Ludlam and Malcolm Roberts from Parliament.

But there's still a glimmer of hope for you yet. Here's why.

Experts argue the rules aren't aligned with our values

Some experts believe our constitution is in serious need of an update.

The director of the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies, Adrienne Stone, says there is an argument that we "ought not to be, in a multicultural society, placing an eligibility requirement on entering parliament that in fact falls unevenly".

"We could be missing out on some terrific representatives. But also it's a matter of the most basic fairness that people ought to be able to contribute or participate on equal grounds," she told the ABC, adding there was a case for reform.

That argument has been backed by former Greens senator Larissa Waters — herself one of the Citizenship Seven. She said the rules were "out of step with our multicultural nation".

"I think it's clearly out of date and it would eliminate a good half of our population from running for Federal Parliament," she told Lateline after the decision.

And our own election analyst Antony Green has described Section 44(i) as "rather archaic".

Sorry, this video has expired ABC political analyst Antony Green discusses the Citizenship Seven decisions.

The PM wants to review the rules

After the High Court handed down its decision on Friday, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said he would refer the ruling to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

That committee is responsible for looking at our electoral laws and practices.

"The Government will refer the decision to the committee so it's able to consider, among other things, whether any changes to Section 44 should be recommended," Mr Turnbull said.

"[It will consider] how the laws and practices could be changed so as to minimise the risk of candidates being in breach of Section 44, and ensure in our multicultural society that all Australians are able to confidently stand for and serve in our Parliament."

He has since reinforced his position on the issue, arguing today that the High Court's decision "raises big issues for how we ensure that every Australian, in this, the most successful multicultural society in the world, is able, confidently, to stand for and get elected to and serve in parliament".

Sorry, this video has expired Malcolm Turnbull responds to Citizenship Seven decision

But changing the constitution isn't easy

Any changes to the constitution must be decided via a referendum.

And before that can happen, the proposed amendments must first be passed by both houses of Parliament.

But there is somewhat of a workaround if, in certain circumstances, a proposed amendment is passed on two separate occasions by only one house of the Parliament.

If passed, it is submitted to a referendum where a majority of people in a majority of states and a majority of people across the nation as a whole need to vote 'yes' (called a double majority) to amend the Constitution, according to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) website.

According to the AEC, "only eight out of 44 proposals to amend the Constitution have been approved".

The last time the constitution was changed was in 1977.

So success would depend on bi-partisan support

Professor Stone said both sides would need to come together and work out a reasonable solution.

And she said they would then need to jointly back it, putting aside politics and showing leadership on the issue.

"If both sides of politics got behind it, the history seems to show you could get an amendment up," she told the ABC.

"However, this government has not shown much taste for showing leadership on questions of constitutional amendments, so I'm not hopeful on that score."

Is there another way to change the rules?

In short, no.

"There is no workaround. You can't legislatively solve this problem," Professor Stone said.

"There's nothing that can be done, except for a constitutional amendment."

So if the Government is interested in making a change on this issue, its only option is to pursue a constitutional amendment.

Some doubt there's much interest in change anyway

Constitutional law expert and Sydney University professor Anne Twomey said she doesn't "see any real appetite" for changing the constitution.

"It is not the sort of thing that people march on the streets for. There is a much bigger push for things like, you know, Indigenous recognition or a republic," she told the ABC yesterday.

"This is a third order issue and the reality is that this issue can be easily sorted by parties just having strict vetting procedures in relation to the candidates. The major parties already have that, that is why they have not gotten into trouble.

"This is really just more of a mechanical procedural issue for the parties to sort out. You don't really need to change the constitution to fix it as there is no pressing underlying issue."

Loading...