The section regarding disqualification of parliamentarians read as follows:

“If
he takes an Oath or makes a Declaration or Acknowledgment of
Allegiance, Obedience, or Adherence to a Foreign Power, or does an Act
whereby he becomes a Subject or Citizen, or entitled to the Rights or
Privileges of a Subject or Citizen, of a Foreign Power:”

The
1892 draft what was to become the ‘Commonwealth of Australia Act 1901’
had as the disqualification for standing for federal parliament, just
“Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a
foreign power.”

However what went to the Parliament
at Westminster in 1900 had added “or is a subject or a citizen or
entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a
foreign power:”
See: The current High Court Judgement and the ‘two limbs’ of section 44(i).
http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2017/HCA/45

The
final and current version has the fingers of the Colonial Office all
over it – noting that at the time a particular concern of the British
Empire was the expansion of the United States into the Pacific with
annexations of Hawaii (whose independence had been guaranteed by
Britain) and the Spanish Philippines – both in 1898.

It
is also somewhat ironic that the Parliament at Westminster which
created the Australian Federation has currently no bar on dual citizens
standing for or sitting in it. (Also the Canadians when they modernised
their constituion some 35 years ago removed any bar to dual-citizens
standing for parliament.)

Note too that a Parliamentary Committee 20 years ago recommended reform of section 44(i)
http://www.aec.gov.au/…/backgrounders/s44-constitution.htm
but the politicians appear to have believed that the electorate was too
ignorant, and/or stupid, xenophobic to be convinced to vote ‘yes’ for a
change. Ample evidence abounds that they may have been right.