Replies

The trouble is, while I am as strong a supporter of the Australian constitution as anyone, the idea that citizens of other Commonwealth Realms (such as Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom itself) are "subject(s) or citizen(s) of a foreign power" is extremely questionable under the terms of the Constitution itself. Our allegiance under the Constitution are to "Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom" (Her Majesty at the time of the constitution being adopted being Queen Victoria - who died 20 days after the constitution took effect). That is clearly Queen Elizabeth II. As the other Commonwealth Realms also share that same allegiance, the idea that they are foreign powers under the Constitution is very questionable.

The idea of separate nationalities for nations within what was then the British Empire and which became the Commonwealth did not even exist in British or Australian law until the late 1940s, and Australians remained explicitly British subjects until the 1980s. It wasn't until 1999 that anybody even questioned whether somebody holding citizenship of another Commonwealth Realm might be ineligible to be a Member of Parliament and the decision in that case was not unanimous and it is quite open to the High Court to revise that decision which was actually made in the context of many people (including probably some of the Judges) assuming Australia was likely to become a Republic by 2001 (in fact, the referendum held in late 1999, failed to the surprise of many to move Australia from being a constitutional monarchy).