|
September 28, 2004
As we have seen citizenship in the Australian Constitution had little substantive content.
Before 1901 Australians were British subjects and members of self-governing colonies (in the British Empire). After 1901 when the colonies become states in the new federal Commonwealth of Australia, Australians were British subjects and members of the states and the commonwealth.
That pretty much meant that citizenship, its rights and immunities were left for the parliament to define. Citizenship, its rights and responsibilities were to be found in the general law of Australia that was made up of the common law and the Commonwealth and state statutory law.
That pretty much meant that citizenship was an empty shell, given the discriminatory laws or adminstrative practice. That goes to the heart of the institutional structure of Australian citizenship, and is aptly illustrated by the indigenous people in Australia being 'citizens without rights' in their country until the 1960s.
Australians were not formally called citizens until the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 even though Australians did not cease to being British subjects at that point. British subject status for Australians was not removed until 1983, when it was all too apparent that uniting all Commonwealth countries under the British umbrella was no longer valid.
That institutional understanding of citizenship means that it carries a lot of historical baggage.
|
You state that 'British subject status for Australians was not removed until 1983, when it was all too apparent that uniting all Commonwealth countries under the British umbrella was no longer valid.' I would be very interested to know why this was no longer valid. Why did Australians and other commonwealth countries (in particular the 'white dominions') decide to cease being British subjects?