Scott Ludlam, Greens senator, has to immediately stand down because, it turns out, he is also a New Zealand citizen. And of course, our constitution demands that if you are a servant of the people, you should not, cannot, must not, have even the tiniest whiff of divided loyalties. Out you go!

But hang on. What about the criteria to be our head of state? In this case, the constitution demand that he or she be 100 per cent English! (Oh alright, with some German lineage thrown in, and perhaps some Greek.) At least, the constitution demands that we find our heads of state from this one English family.

Is there anything wrong with this picture?

Resoundingly, yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

It was fine for 1901, when the one thing that united all the disparate colonies in Oz, was our common loyalty to the crown. It worked for yonks. But now, in 2017, can we not call this for what it is – absurd?

Yes, I chair the Australian Republic Movement. But I do not say this as an "anti-Elizabethan." Perish the thought. As ever, it is not about Her Majesty, it is about us.

And I do not say it as a plea that we should abandon the provision which demands no dual citizenship – even though in, the Australian constitution, the wording actually reads "States shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia ..." and there is no nation on earth whose interests are so closely aligned with our own, across all things bar the 50 metre line, as New Zealand.

But I make it as a statement of the bleeding obvious.

Just as we cannot, on the one hand, beat our chests about our wonderful Australian egalitarianism, while reserving the position of head of state for a family of English aristocrats that occupies the most privileged seat on earth – theirs by dint of birthright alone – so too, this.

You cannot say it is wrong to have the political class with divided loyalties, while also reserving the position of head of state for that English family.

And this is not just as a matter of symbolism. It is real, and it counts. When the Queen recently received a Chinese trade delegation to Buckingham Palace, who thinks – as our head of state – she was pumping up the tyres of Australian trade? And who thinks she was exclusively devoted to promoting our competitors for Chinese trade affection, her own Great Britain?

Again, we all know the answer.

Is it really too much to ask that, beyond just the politicians, our own head of state be one of us, exclusively devoted to us? Is it really too much to ask that our system of government be by Australians, for Australians, overseen by an Australian?

At least we are moving on it. We all know the Prime Minister's passion for the cause, and he spoke with fire when he addressed our movement last December in Sydney. In Melbourne, on July 29, at the Royal Exhibition Building, we have Opposition Leader Bill Shorten addressing the biggest gathering of Australian Republicans since the days of the Eureka Stockade, as he delivers a headland speech on "The Pathway To The Republic." I for one, hope it will be a path with not too many steps.

For the Ludlam episode highlights how absurd the situation is now, and how this farce must end. Don't just nod your head in furious agreement. Join us! Help us make this happen!

Peter FitzSimons is chair of the Australian Republic Movement.

The Sydney Morning Herald